# Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts



## SassyIrishLass

Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get

*Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*

An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.

The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.

Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.

In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.


While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”

Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.

Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”

*The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*

*BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*


----------



## Manonthestreet

I thought it was the evil Jews doing this...not good libs


----------



## defcon4

Manonthestreet said:


> I thought it was the evil Jews doing this...not good libs


.. aren't they the same? My mistake….


----------



## JGalt

Just wait until Walker is elected President. He's already eliminated all state funding for Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

SassyIrishLass said:


> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*



Uh, the abortion was 'as bad as it can get.' Not the doing something necessary however unsavory with the corpus afterwords.


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*


Breaking news?  Chris Wallace's interview was from 2000.  Here is an article this from 1987. Medical Use of Fetal Tissues Spurs New Abortion Debate - NYTimes.com

Great scoop there on a story that broke 28 years ago.  How many lives have been saved because of the research done on this tissue?

And, no, it is not a crime to use this tissue in research.


----------



## toxicmedia

SassyIrishLass said:


> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*


I can't find anything about this online, except from every pro life web site on the planet.

When I back out of the outrage and hasty judgments the pro life industry wants me to have...I start to ask myself why this is different from people dying in traffic accidents and donating their organs.

I guess what pro lifers want implied here, is that Planned Parenthood is aborting fetuses, for parts, which would otherwise NOT have been aborted. I don't see any evidence that this is the case.

If you had a child born with a bad liver, or heart, wouldn't this be a good thing?


----------



## paddymurphy

JGalt said:


> Just wait until Walker is elected President. He's already eliminated all state funding for Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin.


"In the U.S., the use of fetal tissue is regulated by law to prevent abuse. For example, women who donate their aborted fetuses for research are required to give their free and informed consent, and must not be asked to donate until after they have already decided to have an abortion. Fears that women are being coerced into abortions solely to obtain fetal tissue are irrational and unfounded.

In Canada, no laws exist at present on the handling and use of fetal tissue (a law is currently on the drawing board), but strict ethical guidelines are enforced by several independent research councils. Research funding is provided only to individuals and institutions that certify compliance with the guidelines. These cover much the same ground as the U.S. laws, including the requirement for informed consent from women without interfering with their abortion decision, and the obtainment of tissue through non-commercial means.

*Mod Edit:*

*Copyright. Link Each "Copy & Paste" to It's Source. Only paste a small to medium section of the material.*

More vicious lies from the Irish Lassie.


----------



## Correll

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> I can't find anything about this online, except from every pro life web site on the planet.
> 
> When I back out of the outrage and hasty judgments the pro life industry wants me to have...I start to ask myself why this is different from people dying in traffic accidents and donating their organs.
> 
> I guess what pro lifers want implied here, is that Planned Parenthood is aborting fetuses, for parts, which would otherwise NOT have been aborted. I don't see any evidence that this is the case.
> 
> If you had a child born with a bad liver, or heart, wouldn't this be a good thing?
Click to expand...



So, was a serious crime committed and were any arrests made?


----------



## paddymurphy

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> I can't find anything about this online, except from every pro life web site on the planet.
> 
> When I back out of the outrage and hasty judgments the pro life industry wants me to have...I start to ask myself why this is different from people dying in traffic accidents and donating their organs.
> 
> I guess what pro lifers want implied here, is that Planned Parenthood is aborting fetuses, for parts, which would otherwise NOT have been aborted. I don't see any evidence that this is the case.
> 
> If you had a child born with a bad liver, or heart, wouldn't this be a good thing?
Click to expand...

There is no difference and there is no "selling" of tissue or organs.  The fees discussed are the cost of removing and preserving the tissue for research.


----------



## toxicmedia

Correll said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> I can't find anything about this online, except from every pro life web site on the planet.
> 
> When I back out of the outrage and hasty judgments the pro life industry wants me to have...I start to ask myself why this is different from people dying in traffic accidents and donating their organs.
> 
> I guess what pro lifers want implied here, is that Planned Parenthood is aborting fetuses, for parts, which would otherwise NOT have been aborted. I don't see any evidence that this is the case.
> 
> If you had a child born with a bad liver, or heart, wouldn't this be a good thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, was a serious crime committed and were any arrests made?
Click to expand...

What I gather from many of the pro life web sites reporting this is that "it will take a lot of pressure to bring consequences to bear"

Which has me guessing nobody has been arrested.

I'm also not really finding anything that gives details on this federal law in question, and connecting that to what PP is doing.

I've heard the word "profiteering" thrown around, but then we hear $20 for this and $30 for that. International organ traffickers make tens of thousands for their kidneys and livers.

I'm not finding anything rational being presented beyond all the hysteria and foregone conclusions they expect me to have


----------



## toxicmedia

I should have read post #8


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wait until Walker is elected President. He's already eliminated all state funding for Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In the U.S., the use of fetal tissue is regulated by law to prevent abuse. For example, women who donate their aborted fetuses for research are required to give their free and informed consent, and must not be asked to donate until after they have already decided to have an abortion. Fears that women are being coerced into abortions solely to obtain fetal tissue are irrational and unfounded.
> 
> In Canada, no laws exist at present on the handling and use of fetal tissue (a law is currently on the drawing board), but strict ethical guidelines are enforced by several independent research councils. Research funding is provided only to individuals and institutions that certify compliance with the guidelines. These cover much the same ground as the U.S. laws, including the requirement for informed consent from women without interfering with their abortion decision, and the obtainment of tissue through non-commercial means.
> 
> The only allegation currently under investigation by a U.S. Congressional committee is that two biomedical companies, acting as third parties in the collection of fetal tissue, are charging inflated handling fees to research institutions -- more than what is needed to cover costs. Let there be no doubt as to the unanimous pro-choice position on this -- if any type of illegal activity is happening -- and nothing has been proved as yet -- let's root it out and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. [Ed note: In August 2001, these two companies and a Kansas abortion clinic were cleared of any wrongdoing, after an FBI investigation concluded no illegal activities had occurred].
> 
> As for the vicious gossip about doctors killing babies to "harvest" their organs, such hearsay is more suited to publication in the Weekly World News. These rumours originate from a single, anonymous source -- "Kelly," who claims to be a former worker at an organ donation company in Maryland. The scenes she describes constitute criminal behaviour, and a gross violation of medical ethics. If her claims are true, why is she hiding behind a pseudonym, instead of helping bring the perpetrators to justice? Why did she go to Life Dynamics with her "evidence", instead of the police? These stories and their source are simply not credible, and abortion providers are outraged by even the suggestion of such barbaric practices. [Ed note: In March 2000, in front of a Congressional committee, the stories of "Kelly" and Life Dynamics were completely discredited—"Kelly" was actually Lawrence Dean Alberty, a paid spy for Life Dynamics, and he and LDI apparently fabricated much of the "evidence".]"
> 
> More vicious lies from the Irish Lassie.
Click to expand...


The video says otherwise, dumb ass.


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wait until Walker is elected President. He's already eliminated all state funding for Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In the U.S., the use of fetal tissue is regulated by law to prevent abuse. For example, women who donate their aborted fetuses for research are required to give their free and informed consent, and must not be asked to donate until after they have already decided to have an abortion. Fears that women are being coerced into abortions solely to obtain fetal tissue are irrational and unfounded.
> 
> In Canada, no laws exist at present on the handling and use of fetal tissue (a law is currently on the drawing board), but strict ethical guidelines are enforced by several independent research councils. Research funding is provided only to individuals and institutions that certify compliance with the guidelines. These cover much the same ground as the U.S. laws, including the requirement for informed consent from women without interfering with their abortion decision, and the obtainment of tissue through non-commercial means.
> 
> The only allegation currently under investigation by a U.S. Congressional committee is that two biomedical companies, acting as third parties in the collection of fetal tissue, are charging inflated handling fees to research institutions -- more than what is needed to cover costs. Let there be no doubt as to the unanimous pro-choice position on this -- if any type of illegal activity is happening -- and nothing has been proved as yet -- let's root it out and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. [Ed note: In August 2001, these two companies and a Kansas abortion clinic were cleared of any wrongdoing, after an FBI investigation concluded no illegal activities had occurred].
> 
> As for the vicious gossip about doctors killing babies to "harvest" their organs, such hearsay is more suited to publication in the Weekly World News. These rumours originate from a single, anonymous source -- "Kelly," who claims to be a former worker at an organ donation company in Maryland. The scenes she describes constitute criminal behaviour, and a gross violation of medical ethics. If her claims are true, why is she hiding behind a pseudonym, instead of helping bring the perpetrators to justice? Why did she go to Life Dynamics with her "evidence", instead of the police? These stories and their source are simply not credible, and abortion providers are outraged by even the suggestion of such barbaric practices. [Ed note: In March 2000, in front of a Congressional committee, the stories of "Kelly" and Life Dynamics were completely discredited—"Kelly" was actually Lawrence Dean Alberty, a paid spy for Life Dynamics, and he and LDI apparently fabricated much of the "evidence".]"
> 
> More vicious lies from the Irish Lassie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video says otherwise, dumb ass.
Click to expand...

The producers of the video, like you, are lying pieces of shit.  It is not illegal to use fetal tissue in medical research.  Since the video was taken a year ago and no one has been arrested to charged, pretty clear who is the dumbass here, Lassie.


----------



## paddymurphy

toxicmedia said:


> I should have read post #8


The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  As opposed to the serial lies posted by Lassie.


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wait until Walker is elected President. He's already eliminated all state funding for Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In the U.S., the use of fetal tissue is regulated by law to prevent abuse. For example, women who donate their aborted fetuses for research are required to give their free and informed consent, and must not be asked to donate until after they have already decided to have an abortion. Fears that women are being coerced into abortions solely to obtain fetal tissue are irrational and unfounded.
> 
> In Canada, no laws exist at present on the handling and use of fetal tissue (a law is currently on the drawing board), but strict ethical guidelines are enforced by several independent research councils. Research funding is provided only to individuals and institutions that certify compliance with the guidelines. These cover much the same ground as the U.S. laws, including the requirement for informed consent from women without interfering with their abortion decision, and the obtainment of tissue through non-commercial means.
> 
> The only allegation currently under investigation by a U.S. Congressional committee is that two biomedical companies, acting as third parties in the collection of fetal tissue, are charging inflated handling fees to research institutions -- more than what is needed to cover costs. Let there be no doubt as to the unanimous pro-choice position on this -- if any type of illegal activity is happening -- and nothing has been proved as yet -- let's root it out and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. [Ed note: In August 2001, these two companies and a Kansas abortion clinic were cleared of any wrongdoing, after an FBI investigation concluded no illegal activities had occurred].
> 
> As for the vicious gossip about doctors killing babies to "harvest" their organs, such hearsay is more suited to publication in the Weekly World News. These rumours originate from a single, anonymous source -- "Kelly," who claims to be a former worker at an organ donation company in Maryland. The scenes she describes constitute criminal behaviour, and a gross violation of medical ethics. If her claims are true, why is she hiding behind a pseudonym, instead of helping bring the perpetrators to justice? Why did she go to Life Dynamics with her "evidence", instead of the police? These stories and their source are simply not credible, and abortion providers are outraged by even the suggestion of such barbaric practices. [Ed note: In March 2000, in front of a Congressional committee, the stories of "Kelly" and Life Dynamics were completely discredited—"Kelly" was actually Lawrence Dean Alberty, a paid spy for Life Dynamics, and he and LDI apparently fabricated much of the "evidence".]"
> 
> More vicious lies from the Irish Lassie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video says otherwise, dumb ass.
Click to expand...

http://www.ascb.org/newsfiles/fetaltissue.pdf

2. Is fetal tissue research legal? 

Fetal tissue research is legal in the United States. Scientists have used fetal tissue in research since the 1930s. Human fetal kidney cells were used to develop the polio vaccine that led to the 1954 Nobel Prize in Medicine. In 1975, federal law was clarified to say such research is permitted if “conducted only in accordance with any applicable state or laws regarding such activities (45 C.F.R. 46, Sec. 210).” In 1993 Congress passed the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act (Public Law 103- 43), formalizing President Clinton’s lifting of President Reagan’s 1988 moratorium on federal funding for fetal tissue transplantation research. The use of fetal tissue for other research purposes had not been affected by the 1988 ban. The 1993 Revitalization Act amended the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289 et seq.) as follows: (1) In General – The Secretary may conduct or support research on transplantation of human fetal tissue for therapeutic purposes. (2) Source of Tissue – Human fetal tissue may be used in research carried out under paragraph (1) regardless of whether the tissue is obtained pursuant to a spontaneous or induced abortion or pursuant to a stillbirth.

3. Where do scientists get the tissue? 

Scientists obtain fetal tissue for research purposes from a variety of sources including hospitals, nonprofit tissue banks (one of which is funded by the NIH), and, in some cases, abortion clinics.


----------



## toxicmedia

Well, now we know why this is not found anywhere but pro life web sites. It's simply another example of throwing out words like "human trafficking" to make things sound horrific.

I for one, think it sounds like PP is providing a life saving resource for babies born with birth defects


----------



## JGalt

It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.


----------



## paddymurphy

JGalt said:


> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.


A: He will not win.  B:  If he does, that would have to be passed by Congress and the Senate. C:  There are no federal funds that go to PP that are used in abortion services so, if he guts that funding, it will only mean less services to women for cancer screening and birth control.  The great reduction we have seen in teen pregnancies and abortions will suddenly reverse as women lose access to those non-abortion services.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> A: He will not win.  B:  If he does, that would have to be passed by Congress and the Senate. C:  There are no federal funds that go to PP that are used in abortion services so, if he guts that funding, it will only mean less services to women for cancer screening and birth control.  The great reduction we have seen in teen pregnancies and abortions will suddenly reverse as women lose access to those non-abortion services.
Click to expand...


You're so full of shit you stink


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> A: He will not win.  B:  If he does, that would have to be passed by Congress and the Senate. C:  There are no federal funds that go to PP that are used in abortion services so, if he guts that funding, it will only mean less services to women for cancer screening and birth control.  The great reduction we have seen in teen pregnancies and abortions will suddenly reverse as women lose access to those non-abortion services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit you stink
Click to expand...

What, no response to my proving you to be a fucking liar?  No rebuttal to the proof I provided that demonstrated that the use of fetal tissue in research is perfectly legal?  And what in the above was incorrect?  Whether or not Walker wins is a matter of opinion.  That congress would have to vote to eliminate that funding is a fact; that no federal funds are used for abortion services by PP is a fact; that the majority of the services they provide are not related to abortion is a fact and it is a fact that when you reduce access to birth control, you get more pregnancy and more abortions.  None of those are things you can prove I am "full of shit" about.  I guess you are getting a little pissed at me for repeatedly proving you to be a liar.  There is a solution, you know....stop lying.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> A: He will not win.  B:  If he does, that would have to be passed by Congress and the Senate. C:  There are no federal funds that go to PP that are used in abortion services so, if he guts that funding, it will only mean less services to women for cancer screening and birth control.  The great reduction we have seen in teen pregnancies and abortions will suddenly reverse as women lose access to those non-abortion services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit you stink
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, no response to my proving you to be a fucking liar?  No rebuttal to the proof I provided that demonstrated that the use of fetal tissue in research is perfectly legal?  And what in the above was incorrect?  Whether or not Walker wins is a matter of opinion.  That congress would have to vote to eliminate that funding is a fact; that no federal funds are used for abortion services by PP is a fact; that the majority of the services they provide are not related to abortion is a fact and it is a fact that when you reduce access to birth control, you get more pregnancy and more abortions.  None of those are things you can prove I am "full of shit" about.  I guess you are getting a little pissed at me for repeatedly proving you to be a liar.  There is a solution, you know....stop lying.
Click to expand...


LOL Paddy (as expected) loses his mind. GFY old man. I don't take you serious at all and get some help for your obvious anger problems


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> A: He will not win.  B:  If he does, that would have to be passed by Congress and the Senate. C:  There are no federal funds that go to PP that are used in abortion services so, if he guts that funding, it will only mean less services to women for cancer screening and birth control.  The great reduction we have seen in teen pregnancies and abortions will suddenly reverse as women lose access to those non-abortion services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit you stink
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, no response to my proving you to be a fucking liar?  No rebuttal to the proof I provided that demonstrated that the use of fetal tissue in research is perfectly legal?  And what in the above was incorrect?  Whether or not Walker wins is a matter of opinion.  That congress would have to vote to eliminate that funding is a fact; that no federal funds are used for abortion services by PP is a fact; that the majority of the services they provide are not related to abortion is a fact and it is a fact that when you reduce access to birth control, you get more pregnancy and more abortions.  None of those are things you can prove I am "full of shit" about.  I guess you are getting a little pissed at me for repeatedly proving you to be a liar.  There is a solution, you know....stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Paddy (as expected) loses his mind. GFY old man. I don't take you serious at all and get some help for your obvious anger problems
Click to expand...

You mistake my bemusement at how stupidly you react as anger.  I provide objective facts that you cannot rebut.  Your long delay in replying was no doubt spent trying to find something, anything, to support the lies in the video or to rebut the truth I provided.  Not being able to find anything, you lose it and just attack me.  Prove that what I posted about the legality of the use of fetal tissue for medical research is false or shut up.  Prove that despite the "smoking gun" video you posted, no one was charged or shut up.  In other words, Lassie, put up or shut up.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> A: He will not win.  B:  If he does, that would have to be passed by Congress and the Senate. C:  There are no federal funds that go to PP that are used in abortion services so, if he guts that funding, it will only mean less services to women for cancer screening and birth control.  The great reduction we have seen in teen pregnancies and abortions will suddenly reverse as women lose access to those non-abortion services.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit you stink
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, no response to my proving you to be a fucking liar?  No rebuttal to the proof I provided that demonstrated that the use of fetal tissue in research is perfectly legal?  And what in the above was incorrect?  Whether or not Walker wins is a matter of opinion.  That congress would have to vote to eliminate that funding is a fact; that no federal funds are used for abortion services by PP is a fact; that the majority of the services they provide are not related to abortion is a fact and it is a fact that when you reduce access to birth control, you get more pregnancy and more abortions.  None of those are things you can prove I am "full of shit" about.  I guess you are getting a little pissed at me for repeatedly proving you to be a liar.  There is a solution, you know....stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Paddy (as expected) loses his mind. GFY old man. I don't take you serious at all and get some help for your obvious anger problems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mistake my bemusement at how stupidly you react as anger.  I provide objective facts that you cannot rebut.  Your long delay in replying was no doubt spent trying to find something, anything, to support the lies in the video or to rebut the truth I provided.  Not being able to find anything, you lose it and just attack me.  Prove that what I posted about the legality of the use of fetal tissue for medical research is false or shut up.  Prove that despite the "smoking gun" video you posted, no one was charged or shut up.  In other words, Lassie, put up or shut up.
Click to expand...


----------



## toxicmedia

JGalt said:


> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.


Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.

I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.

Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.

If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.

I like Walker. I may vote for the man.

I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> A: He will not win.  B:  If he does, that would have to be passed by Congress and the Senate. C:  There are no federal funds that go to PP that are used in abortion services so, if he guts that funding, it will only mean less services to women for cancer screening and birth control.  The great reduction we have seen in teen pregnancies and abortions will suddenly reverse as women lose access to those non-abortion services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit you stink
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, no response to my proving you to be a fucking liar?  No rebuttal to the proof I provided that demonstrated that the use of fetal tissue in research is perfectly legal?  And what in the above was incorrect?  Whether or not Walker wins is a matter of opinion.  That congress would have to vote to eliminate that funding is a fact; that no federal funds are used for abortion services by PP is a fact; that the majority of the services they provide are not related to abortion is a fact and it is a fact that when you reduce access to birth control, you get more pregnancy and more abortions.  None of those are things you can prove I am "full of shit" about.  I guess you are getting a little pissed at me for repeatedly proving you to be a liar.  There is a solution, you know....stop lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL Paddy (as expected) loses his mind. GFY old man. I don't take you serious at all and get some help for your obvious anger problems
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mistake my bemusement at how stupidly you react as anger.  I provide objective facts that you cannot rebut.  Your long delay in replying was no doubt spent trying to find something, anything, to support the lies in the video or to rebut the truth I provided.  Not being able to find anything, you lose it and just attack me.  Prove that what I posted about the legality of the use of fetal tissue for medical research is false or shut up.  Prove that despite the "smoking gun" video you posted, no one was charged or shut up.  In other words, Lassie, put up or shut up.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Still losing it, Lassie?  How sad.


----------



## JGalt

toxicmedia said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.
> 
> I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.
> 
> Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.
> 
> If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.
> 
> I like Walker. I may vote for the man.
> 
> I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either
Click to expand...


Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".

Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.


----------



## paddymurphy

JGalt said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.
> 
> I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.
> 
> Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.
> 
> If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.
> 
> I like Walker. I may vote for the man.
> 
> I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".
> 
> Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.
Click to expand...

The right used these issues as wedge issues in the past.  Now that the nation has decided the Democrats are right, they are going to try to ignore them.  Why should Walker be permitted to not tell us what he will do on these two issues?  He has advanced draconian anti-abortion legislation in his state; laws that treat women like children.  Those actions are entirely relevant to whether or not he should get a person's vote.


----------



## JGalt

paddymurphy said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.
> 
> I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.
> 
> Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.
> 
> If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.
> 
> I like Walker. I may vote for the man.
> 
> I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".
> 
> Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right used these issues as wedge issues in the past.  Now that the nation has decided the Democrats are right, they are going to try to ignore them.  Why should Walker be permitted to not tell us what he will do on these two issues?  He has advanced draconian anti-abortion legislation in his state; laws that treat women like children.  Those actions are entirely relevant to whether or not he should get a person's vote.
Click to expand...



What's "draconian" about having an expectant mother to have an ultra-sound before having an abortion? Is defunding an organization started by a self-admitted racist who sought to reduce the population of blacks "draconian"? And how does any bill Walker passed treat woman like "children"? His own Lt. Governor is a woman, are you saying Walker hates women? His concealed carry law gives women the same right to defend themselves, as men. Besides, what difference does it make what he does? You're not going to vote for him or any other Republican, you're going to waste your vote on "Hillary/Sanders/Biden/Insert Communist of your choice here."


----------



## paddymurphy

JGalt said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.
> 
> I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.
> 
> Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.
> 
> If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.
> 
> I like Walker. I may vote for the man.
> 
> I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".
> 
> Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right used these issues as wedge issues in the past.  Now that the nation has decided the Democrats are right, they are going to try to ignore them.  Why should Walker be permitted to not tell us what he will do on these two issues?  He has advanced draconian anti-abortion legislation in his state; laws that treat women like children.  Those actions are entirely relevant to whether or not he should get a person's vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's "draconian" about having an expectant mother to have an ultra-sound before having an abortion? Is defunding an organization started by a self-admitted racist who sought to reduce the population of blacks "draconian"? And how does any bill Walker passed treat woman like "children"? His own Lt. Governor is a woman, are you saying Walker hates women? His concealed carry law gives women the same right to defend themselves, as men. Besides, what difference does it make what he does? You're not going to vote for him or any other Republican, you're going to waste your vote on "Hillary/Sanders/Biden/Insert Communist of your choice here."
Click to expand...

That was one of the provisions.  The law that requires that doctors have admitting privileges is absolutely designed to make it more difficult for women to have a perfectly legal procedure.  There is no reason for this law other than to interfere with the right of a woman to have access to abortion.  There is no medical reason to require an ultrasound. None.  It is a law that suggests that women are really not aware of what the are doing when they decide to have an abortion.  It is a violation of their rights to force them to undergo any kind of medical procedure.  As for the idiotic comments about guns, was it unlawful from women to carry a concealed weapon before while it was legal for men?  What a moronic example.  And your comments about Planned parenthood mimic the same lies that other of your ilk spread.  I have voted for Republicans.. for the US Senate, for Congress and for Governor of my state.  I will not vote for Walker because of his far right views; views that are out of touch with the American public.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Great thread.


----------



## Clementine

PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.   

In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.   

Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.

If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.  

Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.    

Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts


----------



## Asclepias

Clementine said:


> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts


Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?


----------



## koshergrl

Asclepias said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
Click to expand...

 Are you joking?


----------



## Asclepias

koshergrl said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you joking?
Click to expand...

Why would I joke about it? If you cant answer the question its OK. 

Cain s False Attack on Planned Parenthood


----------



## NYcarbineer

koshergrl said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you joking?
Click to expand...


She never said it.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs

Best comment so far.... "Weird how clumps of cells magically become "intact livers and hearts" once it's time for Planned Parenthood to harvest that baby for cash."


----------



## Asclepias

SassyIrishLass said:


> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs


I dont doubt that its true. I'm asking about Sanger.


----------



## NYcarbineer

So far this story is only on the rightwing propaganda circuit.


----------



## Asclepias

NYcarbineer said:


> So far this story is only on the rightwing propaganda circuit.


Yeah. So far all I can find it on is the nutcase circuit which doesnt bode well. I do know however that they will accept donations from racists wanting to exterminate Blacks.


----------



## Clementine

Asclepias said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
Click to expand...



What?   You want a history lesson?    You didn't learn about her years ago.    Your problem.


----------



## Clementine

SassyIrishLass said:


> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs
> 
> Best comment so far.... "Weird how clumps of cells magically become "intact livers and hearts" once it's time for Planned Parenthood to harvest that baby for cash."




It's sickening that they are illegally making money on the side.   More incentive for them to do more abortions.  

Of course, the libs here won't comment on the subject, but are jumping in to defend the racist Margaret Sanger.    They must have rewritten more of history and now deny more of the past.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Asclepias said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs
> 
> 
> 
> I dont doubt that its true. I'm asking about Sanger.
Click to expand...


The video sort of proves it's true and Sanger was a racist, who founded PP and advocated for the extermination of the black race


----------



## Asclepias

Clementine said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What?   You want a history lesson?    You didn't learn about her years ago.    Your problem.
Click to expand...

I did learn about her years ago. I never saw proof she made that statement. Sounds to me like someone fooled you.


----------



## Asclepias

SassyIrishLass said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs
> 
> 
> 
> I dont doubt that its true. I'm asking about Sanger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video sort of proves it's true and Sanger was a racist, who founded PP and advocated for the extermination of the black race
Click to expand...

The video proves nothing about Sanger and I cant simply take your word that she advocated for the extermination of the Black race. I need some facts and not opinions.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

The liberal baby murderers desperately try and deflect this one.


----------



## Asclepias

Clementine said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs
> 
> Best comment so far.... "Weird how clumps of cells magically become "intact livers and hearts" once it's time for Planned Parenthood to harvest that baby for cash."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's sickening that they are illegally making money on the side.   More incentive for them to do more abortions.
> 
> Of course, the libs here won't comment on the subject, but are jumping in to defend the racist Margaret Sanger.    They must have rewritten more of history and now deny more of the past.
Click to expand...

I did comment on the subject. I'm not surprised they are doing this.  I was asking for proof Sanger made the comment attributed to her in the OP.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Asclepias said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs
> 
> 
> 
> I dont doubt that its true. I'm asking about Sanger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video sort of proves it's true and Sanger was a racist, who founded PP and advocated for the extermination of the black race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The video proves nothing about Sanger and I cant simply take your word that she advocated for the extermination of the Black race. I need some facts and not opinions.
Click to expand...


Save it, I don't deal with deflection and BS from the likes of you


----------



## Asclepias

SassyIrishLass said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs
> 
> 
> 
> I dont doubt that its true. I'm asking about Sanger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video sort of proves it's true and Sanger was a racist, who founded PP and advocated for the extermination of the black race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The video proves nothing about Sanger and I cant simply take your word that she advocated for the extermination of the Black race. I need some facts and not opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save it, I don't deal with deflection and BS from the likes of you
Click to expand...

So you dont have proof? I thought so.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

You own it libs and dems....you own it all.


----------



## Asclepias

Can anyone verify the following claim the OP made? She keeps running from it and has provided zero proof.



> As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Asclepias said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
Click to expand...


it's true Asc.  A despicable woman, Sanger.  And our government has sanctioned her business and has made it an arm of the left.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Here is a sample of her quotes:
Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com




*Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
*On sterilization & racial purification:*
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
*On the right of married couples to bear children:*
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
*On the purpose of birth control:*
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
*On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12

*On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
"This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in


the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)

*On the extermination of blacks:*
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."


----------



## Asclepias

The Irish Ram said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's true Asc.  A despicable woman, Sanger.  And our government has sanctioned her business and has made it an arm of the left.
Click to expand...

Lots of people say its true but to date no one has proven it. Thats all I am asking.


----------



## BlindBoo

I'm calling it an O'keefe scam.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

The Irish Ram said:


> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."



It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman


----------



## Coyote

I'd like to seem more evidence than a heavily edited 8-minute tape of one conversatoin thus far only available in the conservative media.


----------



## Asclepias

The Irish Ram said:


> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."


Why is the one that speaks about the extermination of Blacks lacking a source?


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
Click to expand...


Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.


----------



## Coyote

Asclepias said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the one that speaks about the extermination of Blacks lacking a source?
Click to expand...


Lots of ducking, dodging and weaving though...


----------



## The Irish Ram

She's well documented.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
Click to expand...


vile.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
Click to expand...


She called for the extermination of blacks. There is absolutely no reason PP is selling human body parts and if this turns out to be true then they need shut down


----------



## Asclepias

SassyIrishLass said:


> She called for the extermination of blacks.


If she did why cant you prove it?


----------



## The Irish Ram

Trying to rewrite history Coyote?  She was a vile woman with vile ideas.


----------



## Asclepias

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She called for the extermination of blacks. There is absolutely no reason PP is selling human body parts and if this turns out to be true then they need shut down
Click to expand...

I agree they need to be shut down if this is true.


----------



## Coyote

The Irish Ram said:


> Trying to rewrite history Coyote?  She was a vile woman with vile ideas.



I don't think it's me that's trying to "re-write" anything.  I'm sticking to the facts.


----------



## Coyote

The Irish Ram said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> vile.
Click to expand...


Perpetual pregnancy is vile.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, and  interviews, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> There is absolutely no reason PP is selling human body parts and if this turns out to be true then they need shut down



Because the sale of human tissue or body parts is prohibited by federal law, the traffickers have worked out an arrangement to expedite the process from which they all benefit and still remain within current interpretations of the law. For instance, the harvesters receive the fetal material as a " donation" from the abortion clinic. In return, the clinic is paid a "site fee" for rental of lab space where technicians, employed by the harvesters, perform as many dissections as necessary to fill researcher manifests. The harvesters then "donate" the body parts to the researchers and, rather than pay the harvesters for the actual body parts, "donate" the cost of the retrieval (a service) via a formal price list.

The fiction is that under this mutually acceptable agreement, no laws are broken: No body parts from aborted fetuses are sold. In nearly all cases, the entire fetus is not needed. Rather, the fetus is dissected and the parts shipped to either the private corporation, university, or government agency where the research is being conducted. Any remaining skin, tissue, bones, or organs are ground up in the sink disposal or incinerated.

Brenda Bardsley, vice president of the Anatomic Gift Foundation, or AGF, tells _Insight_, "It's sad, but maybe it makes it [abortion] easier for us knowing that something good will come out of it." She adds, "We're doing our best in an unpleasant situation." Bardsley says the AGF's fetal-tissue retrieval accounts for "less than 10 percent of the company's business" and there are strict rules controlling when and under what conditions a technician may perform the procedures. "The decision to go ahead with the abortion," says Bardsley, "must be made before the woman is approached about donation, and we don't get access to the cadaver until the physician has firmly established death." Nearly 75 percent of the women who choose abortion agree to donate the fetal tissue, she says.

As part of AGF's services, it also runs serology (blood tests) on women who have elected to have an abortion and requires that the medical director of the clinic advise such women if they are shown by the tests to have other medical conditions such as AIDS, hepatitis B or C, or syphilis.

Along with its fetal-tissue harvesting, AGF also handles adult tissue. According to Bardsley, this is their main business, and they handle "only about five to 10 fetal-tissue procedures a week from two different clinics." AGF charges a flat fee of as much as $280 per specimen or individual body part. According to tax records provided to _Insight_ by Bardsley, AGF's gross income has increased from a little more than $180,000 in 1994 to $2 million in 1998.

Harvesting Fetal Body Parts


----------



## SassyIrishLass

The Irish Ram said:


> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.



The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK


----------



## g5000

The Irish Ram said:


> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."


Note how every one of Sanger's comments is taken out of context.  Most of the quotes aren't even complete sentences!

A sure sign of bullshit.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlindBoo said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no reason PP is selling human body parts and if this turns out to be true then they need shut down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the sale of human tissue or body parts is prohibited by federal law, the traffickers have worked out an arrangement to expedite the process from which they all benefit and still remain within current interpretations of the law. For instance, the harvesters receive the fetal material as a " donation" from the abortion clinic. In return, the clinic is paid a "site fee" for rental of lab space where technicians, employed by the harvesters, perform as many dissections as necessary to fill researcher manifests. The harvesters then "donate" the body parts to the researchers and, rather than pay the harvesters for the actual body parts, "donate" the cost of the retrieval (a service) via a formal price list.
> 
> The fiction is that under this mutually acceptable agreement, no laws are broken: No body parts from aborted fetuses are sold. In nearly all cases, the entire fetus is not needed. Rather, the fetus is dissected and the parts shipped to either the private corporation, university, or government agency where the research is being conducted. Any remaining skin, tissue, bones, or organs are ground up in the sink disposal or incinerated.
> 
> Brenda Bardsley, vice president of the Anatomic Gift Foundation, or AGF, tells _Insight_, "It's sad, but maybe it makes it [abortion] easier for us knowing that something good will come out of it." She adds, "We're doing our best in an unpleasant situation." Bardsley says the AGF's fetal-tissue retrieval accounts for "less than 10 percent of the company's business" and there are strict rules controlling when and under what conditions a technician may perform the procedures. "The decision to go ahead with the abortion," says Bardsley, "must be made before the woman is approached about donation, and we don't get access to the cadaver until the physician has firmly established death." Nearly 75 percent of the women who choose abortion agree to donate the fetal tissue, she says.
> 
> As part of AGF's services, it also runs serology (blood tests) on women who have elected to have an abortion and requires that the medical director of the clinic advise such women if they are shown by the tests to have other medical conditions such as AIDS, hepatitis B or C, or syphilis.
> 
> Along with its fetal-tissue harvesting, AGF also handles adult tissue. According to Bardsley, this is their main business, and they handle "only about five to 10 fetal-tissue procedures a week from two different clinics." AGF charges a flat fee of as much as $280 per specimen or individual body part. According to tax records provided to _Insight_ by Bardsley, AGF's gross income has increased from a little more than $180,000 in 1994 to $2 million in 1998.
> 
> Harvesting Fetal Body Parts
Click to expand...


The only way they can harvest the cash crop is through partial birth abortions....there lies the problem


----------



## g5000

As for the profiteering off fetal body parts, it just doesn't get more disgusting than that. 

Deborah Nucatola's callousness as she discusses the harvesting of body parts is the epitome of evil.


----------



## Asclepias

The Irish Ram said:


> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.


Trust me I have already researched. There are only quotes taken out of context regarding that subject. So far the only thing I have found is that she recognized that some Black people would see this as an attempt to exterminate the Black race and she felt it was advisable to get Black religious leaders to help spread the message. Proof would be a quote and a source.


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
Click to expand...


Provide it then.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Fourth nutter to do this thread today! Weeeeeeeee!


----------



## g5000

Asclepias said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me I have already researched. There are only quotes taken out of context regarding that subject. So far the only thing I have found is that she recognized that some Black people would see this as an attempt to exterminate the Black race and she felt it was advisable to get Black religious leaders to help spread the message.
Click to expand...

Exactly.  She was concerned that birth control would be PERCEIVED by blacks as an attempt to exterminate them, and would therefore resist using it.  And so she suggested using black preachers to help allay their misguided fears.

When you see her statement in context, this is blazingly clear.  That's why manipulating assholes take it out of context.  They are committing a deliberate lie of omission which the rubes guzzle down.


----------



## Coyote

Asclepias said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me I have already researched. There are only quotes taken out of context regarding that subject. So far the only thing I have found is that she recognized that some Black people would see this as an attempt to exterminate the Black race and she felt it was advisable to get Black religious leaders to help spread the message.
Click to expand...



That's the only reference I've read about her attitude towards blacks - there's a lot she has said that has been take out of context.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
Click to expand...


All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up


----------



## Asclepias

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
Click to expand...

She did try to sell the KKK on birth control. She spoke to everyone about it.
NH Rep. Bill O Brien says Margaret Sanger was active participant in KKK PolitiFact New Hampshire

"Always to me any aroused group was a good group," Sanger writes, "and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan at Silver Lake, New Jersey, one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing."


----------



## JFish123

Asclepias said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
Click to expand...

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
And now for some Other crazy crap she said....
On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12













Wow! What a woman! Lol







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## konradv

SassyIrishLass said:


> She called for the extermination of blacks.


That's a gross misrepresentation of her mission.  She actually had good relations with black leaders and they worked with her.
Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Asclepias

konradv said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> She called for the extermination of blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a gross misrepresentation of her mission.  She actually had good relations with black leaders and they worked with her.
> Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Evidently it was all an act to trick Black people into killing themselves off.


----------



## g5000

JFish123 said:


> View attachment 44579



That is the ladies auxiliary mentioned in an earlier post.  Here is what Sanger had to say about them:

"Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."


----------



## ClosedCaption

Sheesh ask Sassy for proof. 

I haven't seen that much ducking and dodging since the Mayweather fight


----------



## g5000

Here's a pro tip for pro-lifers.  The next time you start a topic that has some merit (a PP harvesting body parts), don't throw everything off course by donning a tin foil hat and injecting your pet conspiracy theory into it.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Cancer is vile.  Pregnancy avoidable.   I was pregnant twice, but it only lasted for nine months each.  Then I prevented it because 2 children is what I wanted.  We have lots of ways to prevent pregnancy.  To the perpetually pregnant, close your legs, buy a condom, take a pill, take one the next day.  Stop having perpetual sex.
If we can teach a child how to change a penis into a vagina,  we can teach a child how not to get pregnant.   Your claim of being a slave to perpetual pregnancy is bullshit.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

ClosedCaption said:


> Sheesh ask Sassy for proof.
> 
> I haven't seen that much ducking and dodging since the Mayweather fight



You can't Google? Are you really that lame? Or did you feel the need to comment and didn't have anything worthwhile to say so you blabbered BS?


----------



## HenryBHough

Who could object provided a percentage of the profit is donated to The Clinton Foundation?


----------



## Asclepias

g5000 said:


> Here's a pro tip for pro-lifers.  The next time you start a topic that has some merit (a PP harvesting body parts), don't throw everything off course by donning a tin foil hat and injecting your pet conspiracy theory into it.


Exactly. This story may be true. The other wild claims regarding Sanger make you look ignorant.


----------



## Lovebears65

Asclepias said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
Click to expand...


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
Click to expand...


From Wikipedia: Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[47] Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[47]

She gave one lecture on birth control.  So? 

Hardly "speeches"

The funny thing about rightwinger attitudes towards Sanger is this.  They try to tie her in to abortion - but Sanger was actually opposed to abortion.  Her cause was solely birth control.  So, that's one obvious lie.

The second is the distortion of her comments to make the claim that she want's exterminate black people - another lie.  There is nothing in her comments to support that.

Was she racist?  Her opinions reflect the prevalent attitudes in our country during that era - attitudes in fact, that still pop up today in the generaters of "feral negro" and "welfare queen" topics.

_*Sanger's writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. *In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."[93]_​So...why do the rightwingers hate her so much they need to villify her with falsehoods?  She wasn't anti-abortion.  She was no more racist that many of her time, including exhaulted rightwing heros.  What she did was free women - MARRIED women (because she still felt marriage was necessary) from a life of unending childbirth and the physical ailments and poverty that often resulted from that.

She gave women the same sexual freedom that men have long claimed and my god they hate for it!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Wikipedia: Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[47] Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[47]
> 
> She gave one lecture on birth control.  So?
> 
> Hardly "speeches"
> 
> The funny thing about rightwinger attitudes towards Sanger is this.  They try to tie her in to abortion - but Sanger was actually opposed to abortion.  Her cause was solely birth control.  So, that's one obvious lie.
> 
> The second is the distortion of her comments to make the claim that she want's exterminate black people - another lie.  There is nothing in her comments to support that.
> 
> Was she racist?  Her opinions reflect the prevalent attitudes in our country during that era - attitudes in fact, that still pop up today in the generaters of "feral negro" and "welfare queen" topics.
> 
> _*Sanger's writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. *In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."[93]_​So...why do the rightwingers hate her so much they need to villify her with falsehoods?  She wasn't anti-abortion.  She was no more racist that many of her time, including exhaulted rightwing heros.  What she did was free women - MARRIED women (because she still felt marriage was necessary) from a life of unending childbirth and the physical ailments and poverty that often resulted from that.
> 
> She gave women the same sexual freedom that men have long claimed and my god they hate for it!
Click to expand...


Wiki is not a reliable source


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Wikipedia: Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[47] Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[47]
> 
> She gave one lecture on birth control.  So?
> 
> Hardly "speeches"
> 
> The funny thing about rightwinger attitudes towards Sanger is this.  They try to tie her in to abortion - but Sanger was actually opposed to abortion.  Her cause was solely birth control.  So, that's one obvious lie.
> 
> The second is the distortion of her comments to make the claim that she want's exterminate black people - another lie.  There is nothing in her comments to support that.
> 
> Was she racist?  Her opinions reflect the prevalent attitudes in our country during that era - attitudes in fact, that still pop up today in the generaters of "feral negro" and "welfare queen" topics.
> 
> _*Sanger's writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. *In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."[93]_​So...why do the rightwingers hate her so much they need to villify her with falsehoods?  She wasn't anti-abortion.  She was no more racist that many of her time, including exhaulted rightwing heros.  What she did was free women - MARRIED women (because she still felt marriage was necessary) from a life of unending childbirth and the physical ailments and poverty that often resulted from that.
> 
> She gave women the same sexual freedom that men have long claimed and my god they hate for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki is not a reliable source
Click to expand...


  nice dodge.

Wiki is more neutral and reliable than most - and it gives original sources - like her autobiography.  Or is that unreliable too?


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Wikipedia: Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[47] Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[47]
> 
> She gave one lecture on birth control.  So?
> 
> Hardly "speeches"
> 
> The funny thing about rightwinger attitudes towards Sanger is this.  They try to tie her in to abortion - but Sanger was actually opposed to abortion.  Her cause was solely birth control.  So, that's one obvious lie.
> 
> The second is the distortion of her comments to make the claim that she want's exterminate black people - another lie.  There is nothing in her comments to support that.
> 
> Was she racist?  Her opinions reflect the prevalent attitudes in our country during that era - attitudes in fact, that still pop up today in the generaters of "feral negro" and "welfare queen" topics.
> 
> _*Sanger's writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. *In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."[93]_​So...why do the rightwingers hate her so much they need to villify her with falsehoods?  She wasn't anti-abortion.  She was no more racist that many of her time, including exhaulted rightwing heros.  What she did was free women - MARRIED women (because she still felt marriage was necessary) from a life of unending childbirth and the physical ailments and poverty that often resulted from that.
> 
> She gave women the same sexual freedom that men have long claimed and my god they hate for it!
Click to expand...

 
Her motivation was to free up black women for sex without consequences, so they could be readily available for sex, yet still work..and at the same time, reduce the black population.

Is she still your hero?


----------



## ClosedCaption

SassyIrishLass said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sheesh ask Sassy for proof.
> 
> I haven't seen that much ducking and dodging since the Mayweather fight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't Google? Are you really that lame? Or did you feel the need to comment and didn't have anything worthwhile to say so you blabbered BS?
Click to expand...


Since you know where it is I just thought you had some credible evidence to back up your assertions.  My bad, being credible isnt important to some but its weird that you dont have time to prove anything you've said but have plenty of time to complain about people noticing your lack of proof


----------



## The Irish Ram

America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934

Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.

April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108

Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

_Woman, Morality, and Birth Control_. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

Hitler's remedy for the "perpetually pregnant"  was gas.  Sanger's was control of the wombs of others.


----------



## Asclepias

Lovebears65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thanks. I will  check it out.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Wikipedia: Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[47] Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[47]
> 
> She gave one lecture on birth control.  So?
> 
> Hardly "speeches"
> 
> The funny thing about rightwinger attitudes towards Sanger is this.  They try to tie her in to abortion - but Sanger was actually opposed to abortion.  Her cause was solely birth control.  So, that's one obvious lie.
> 
> The second is the distortion of her comments to make the claim that she want's exterminate black people - another lie.  There is nothing in her comments to support that.
> 
> Was she racist?  Her opinions reflect the prevalent attitudes in our country during that era - attitudes in fact, that still pop up today in the generaters of "feral negro" and "welfare queen" topics.
> 
> _*Sanger's writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. *In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."[93]_​So...why do the rightwingers hate her so much they need to villify her with falsehoods?  She wasn't anti-abortion.  She was no more racist that many of her time, including exhaulted rightwing heros.  What she did was free women - MARRIED women (because she still felt marriage was necessary) from a life of unending childbirth and the physical ailments and poverty that often resulted from that.
> 
> She gave women the same sexual freedom that men have long claimed and my god they hate for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her motivation *was to free up black women for sex without consequences, *so they could be readily available for sex, yet still work..and at the same time, reduce the black population.
> 
> Is she still your hero?
Click to expand...


Source?


----------



## koshergrl

"I
saw a sickly baby in the arms of a terrified woman whose drunken
husband had thrown the wailing, naked infant into the snow,” she
recounts, and “I remember having keen sympathy with that man!” His
wife had given birth to eleven children, six of them living, and the last
“evidently had eczema” and “whined night and day,” so the situation was
just “too much” for the father, and “out of the door into the snow the
nuisance went!”

- Progressive Hero Margaret Stanger

http://www.uffl.org/vol16/gardiner06.pdf


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Wikipedia: Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[47] Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[47]
> 
> She gave one lecture on birth control.  So?
> 
> Hardly "speeches"
> 
> The funny thing about rightwinger attitudes towards Sanger is this.  They try to tie her in to abortion - but Sanger was actually opposed to abortion.  Her cause was solely birth control.  So, that's one obvious lie.
> 
> The second is the distortion of her comments to make the claim that she want's exterminate black people - another lie.  There is nothing in her comments to support that.
> 
> Was she racist?  Her opinions reflect the prevalent attitudes in our country during that era - attitudes in fact, that still pop up today in the generaters of "feral negro" and "welfare queen" topics.
> 
> _*Sanger's writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. *In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."[93]_​So...why do the rightwingers hate her so much they need to villify her with falsehoods?  She wasn't anti-abortion.  She was no more racist that many of her time, including exhaulted rightwing heros.  What she did was free women - MARRIED women (because she still felt marriage was necessary) from a life of unending childbirth and the physical ailments and poverty that often resulted from that.
> 
> She gave women the same sexual freedom that men have long claimed and my god they hate for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her motivation *was to free up black women for sex without consequences, *so they could be readily available for sex, yet still work..and at the same time, reduce the black population.
> 
> Is she still your hero?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Source?
Click to expand...

 
"Infanticide is simply ridding oneself of an intolerable “nuisance.” - Margaret Stanger, Coyote's hero

Margaret Sanger, _My Fight for Birth Control _1 (New York NY: Farrar & Rinehart,
1931), pp. 12-13. This work will be cited in the text hereafter as MF.
2 Margaret Sanger, _Woman and the New Race _(New York NY: Truth Publishing
Co., 1920), p. 63. This work will be cited in the text hereafter as WNR.
3 Ironically, the “educated classes” were the ones who patronized the ABCL
bureau, according to David M. Kennedy, _Birth Control in America: The Career
of Margaret Sanger _(New Haven CT: Yale Univ. Press, 1971), p. 182.
4 Margaret Sanger, _The Pivot of Civilization in Historical Perspective_, edited
Michael W. Perry (Seattle WA: Inkling

http://www.uffl.org/vol16/gardiner06.pdf


----------



## g5000

Lovebears65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You must have voices in your head.  Nowhere in that video does Sanger say the goal of PP is to exterminate blacks.

My god, you are stupid.

WHY DON'T YOU TRY WATCHING THE VIDEO?


----------



## koshergrl

"
Sanger repeatedly

browbeats the woman who _wants _a large family by telling her that she is
reducing herself to a “brood animal” and a “breeding machine,” engaging
in “the most immoral practice of the day,” and doing an “injury to
society.” If the woman is working-class, she should consider that “Every
jail, hospital for the insane, reformatory and institution for the feeble
minded cries out against the evils of too prolific breeding among wageworkers,”

and if she is rich, that it is “immoral” for her to have a large
family and halt her “self-development” (WNR 2, 53, 57-58, 63-64, 68)."

Angela Franks, _Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic _9 _Legacy: The Control of Female
Fertility _(Jefferson NC: McFarland and Company, 2005), pp. 12-3, 16, 71, 187.
10 _Pivot of Civilization_, p. 187. Michael Perry notes the implication of infanticide

http://www.uffl.org/vol16/gardiner06.pdf
here.
11 Franks, _Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy_, pp. 47-50.


----------



## toxicmedia

JGalt said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.
> 
> I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.
> 
> Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.
> 
> If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.
> 
> I like Walker. I may vote for the man.
> 
> I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".
> 
> Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.
Click to expand...

He also side stepped the "evolution" issue, which I could not even imagine as an issue, during a BBC interview.

He's sticking to his guns on saying nothing about that, and they're not dead skunk issues for Democrats. The Democrats won, and conitnue to win on them.

The only thing Scott has as a vulnerability, is how crappy the economy is in Wisconsin. One could argue we're only looking at the short term drawback for austerity, without the long term goal in mind, but most voters don't think that much


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> "Infanticide is simply ridding oneself of an intolerable “nuisance.” - Margaret Stanger, Coyote's hero



Once again, you assholes take a quote out of context in a deliberate lie of omission.  And *Sanger never wrote or said those words.*

Will you fucking idiots PLEASE stop publicly demonstrating your stupidity?


----------



## The Irish Ram

Truly stunning to see the left protect one of their own.  If someone had dug through the annals of history and found even one of those quotes, made by Trump, or Palin, the left would insist on immediate crucifixion. 

Do you really need the whole speeches to understand what she stood for?  Trump said some Mexicans are bad, and you scream racist from the roof tops.  Calling blacks weeds is ok though as long as all she's doing is aborting their children.


----------



## g5000

The Irish Ram said:


> Truly stunning to see the left protect one of their own.  If someone had dug through the annals of history and found even one of those quotes, made by Trump, or Palin, the left would insist on immediate crucifixion.


All those quotes are bullshit taken out of context and some which were not even said by Sanger.

If you have to manufacture bullshit to make a point, then your philosophy is utterly bankrupt.  Your belief system is resting on quicksand.

And I am saying this to you idiots as a pro-lifer.  Stop destroying the pro-life movement with your retarded bullshit.  Rather than stain the whole pro-life movement as a pack of morons, just stay out of the conversation.


----------



## ClosedCaption

The Irish Ram said:


> Truly stunning to see the left protect one of their own.  If someone had dug through the annals of history and found even one of those quotes, made by Trump, or Palin, the left would insist on immediate crucifixion.
> 
> Do you really need the whole speeches to understand what she stood for?  Trump said some Mexicans are bad, and you scream racist from the roof tops.  Calling blacks weeds is ok though as long as all she's doing is aborting their children.



I think the difference is that no one has found these quotes and the ones who claimed they have found it is keeping the source and links a secret.  So like, first we have to start with actual quotes and not interpretations


----------



## Bonzi

Clementine said:


> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts


 
I don't know if this is true or not, but it's time to make killing human life illegal.

Now.


----------



## toxicmedia

JGalt said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.
> 
> I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.
> 
> Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.
> 
> If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.
> 
> I like Walker. I may vote for the man.
> 
> I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".
> 
> Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right used these issues as wedge issues in the past.  Now that the nation has decided the Democrats are right, they are going to try to ignore them.  Why should Walker be permitted to not tell us what he will do on these two issues?  He has advanced draconian anti-abortion legislation in his state; laws that treat women like children.  Those actions are entirely relevant to whether or not he should get a person's vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's "draconian" about having an expectant mother to have an ultra-sound before having an abortion? Is defunding an organization started by a self-admitted racist who sought to reduce the population of blacks "draconian"? And how does any bill Walker passed treat woman like "children"? His own Lt. Governor is a woman, are you saying Walker hates women? His concealed carry law gives women the same right to defend themselves, as men. Besides, what difference does it make what he does? You're not going to vote for him or any other Republican, you're going to waste your vote on "Hillary/Sanders/Biden/Insert Communist of your choice here."
Click to expand...

Of course those ultrasounds are Draconian. They have no medical neccessity. They are meant to show pictures to the mother to guilt her into keeping an unwanted fetus.


----------



## Asclepias

Lovebears65 said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What a hatchet job by Mike Wallace. 

She said nothing about Black people in that interview.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Planned Parenthood has responded:

The abortion giant released a statement from a top official defending Nucatola and its practice of selling body parts of aborted babies, which it calls “tissue.” Here is the Planned Parenthood press release:

Statement from Eric Ferraro, Vice President of Communications, Planned Parenthood Federation of America:

“In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does — with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.

“A well-funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case.”

Of course there is still this elephant in the room.....

*However, federal law prohibits the sale of body parts of aborted babies. In fact, the sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000* (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

Also Gov. Jindal will launch and investigation.

Planned Parenthood responds Nucatola s just talking about reimbursements Update Jindal orders LA probe halt to PP license Hot Air


----------



## toxicmedia

paddymurphy said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.
> 
> I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.
> 
> Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.
> 
> If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.
> 
> I like Walker. I may vote for the man.
> 
> I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".
> 
> Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right used these issues as wedge issues in the past.  Now that the nation has decided the Democrats are right, they are going to try to ignore them.  Why should Walker be permitted to not tell us what he will do on these two issues?  He has advanced draconian anti-abortion legislation in his state; laws that treat women like children.  Those actions are entirely relevant to whether or not he should get a person's vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's "draconian" about having an expectant mother to have an ultra-sound before having an abortion? Is defunding an organization started by a self-admitted racist who sought to reduce the population of blacks "draconian"? And how does any bill Walker passed treat woman like "children"? His own Lt. Governor is a woman, are you saying Walker hates women? His concealed carry law gives women the same right to defend themselves, as men. Besides, what difference does it make what he does? You're not going to vote for him or any other Republican, you're going to waste your vote on "Hillary/Sanders/Biden/Insert Communist of your choice here."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was one of the provisions.  The law that requires that doctors have admitting privileges is absolutely designed to make it more difficult for women to have a perfectly legal procedure.  There is no reason for this law other than to interfere with the right of a woman to have access to abortion.  There is no medical reason to require an ultrasound. None.  It is a law that suggests that women are really not aware of what the are doing when they decide to have an abortion.  It is a violation of their rights to force them to undergo any kind of medical procedure.  As for the idiotic comments about guns, was it unlawful from women to carry a concealed weapon before while it was legal for men?  What a moronic example.  And your comments about Planned parenthood mimic the same lies that other of your ilk spread.  I have voted for Republicans.. for the US Senate, for Congress and for Governor of my state.  I will not vote for Walker because of his far right views; views that are out of touch with the American public.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much of that is pandering to idiot righties...but the anti abortion issue, above all others, is rank with hysteria and ignorance. And unusually enough, not from both sides. It's a rare example of righties being wrong about everything on one issue


----------



## The Irish Ram

Chapter 6 of her book: 
Woman and the NEW RACE:
[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

You have shown us how she feels abut Catholics.  But large families aren't genetic.
Here she is, in her book, explaining the reason for sterilization and segregation, specifically tainted progeny and objectionable traits they transmit to offspring.


----------



## Asclepias

The Irish Ram said:


> Truly stunning to see the left protect one of their own.  If someone had dug through the annals of history and found even one of those quotes, made by Trump, or Palin, the left would insist on immediate crucifixion.
> 
> Do you really need the whole speeches to understand what she stood for?  Trump said some Mexicans are bad, and you scream racist from the roof tops.  Calling blacks weeds is ok though as long as all she's doing is aborting their children.


Thats another claim I heard but I cant find the quote anywhere. Where is the proof? She was a known eugenicist but being one doesnt automatically make you a racist. Can anyone show me quotes and not hearsay?


----------



## Asclepias

The Irish Ram said:


> Chapter 6 of her book:
> Woman and the NEW RACE:
> [We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
> 
> You have shown us how she feels abut Catholics.  But large families aren't genetic.
> Here she is, in her book, explaining the reason for sterilization and segregation, specifically tainted progeny and objectionable traits they transmit to offspring.


Everyone already knows she was a eugenicist.  I cant find proof she was a racist.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Facebook is now blocking the video....so much for non bias, promoting an agenda and the media. They got PP and they got them good. Shut them down



*howertonjosh*‏@howertonjosh
Facebook blocked @drmoore's (accurate) post about #PlannedParenthood's top doctor selling parts of infant corpses


----------



## g5000

The Irish Ram said:


> Chapter 6 of her book:
> Woman and the NEW RACE:
> [We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
> 
> You have shown us how she feels abut Catholics.  But large families aren't genetic.
> Here she is, in her book, explaining the reason for sterilization and segregation, specifically tainted progeny and objectionable traits they transmit to offspring.


Here is an online copy of Women and the New Race.

That quote is not in there.

Try again.


----------



## The Irish Ram

in context:



























Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," 27 Mar 1934.

Typed draft article. Source: American Weekly, Mar. 27, 1934 , Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B .

Because only a partial copy of the printed article was found in Sanger's papers, the editors have used the complete typed draft in its place.

*America Needs a Code for Babies*
*A Plea for Equal Distribution of Births by Margaret Sanger*
It has been officially reported that six million children in the United States are being supported by public relief funds. This tragic indictment of our social system indicates, among other things, that there has been an overproduction of babies, or, at least, an improper distribution of them, so that the couples who have the most babies are the very ones who are least able to take care of them.

While the N.R.A. strives through its many codes to increase employment and thus to raise the purchasing power of the people in general, it does not provide for lightening the burden of the parents by reducing the number of mouths that each wage-earner must feed or which the public must feed for him. While the N. R. A. has ↑as↓ its emblem the blue eagle, I am afraid that the six million pauperized children have as their emblem a stork that has the blues. America needs a baby code!! And I want to make a few suggestions that might be considered in the formulation of such a code:

Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies, to assist couples who wish to prevent overproduction of offspring and thus to reduce the burdens of charity and taxation for public relief, and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.

The results desired are obviously selective births. By this I mean a selection based on the prospects for a successful and happy babyhood, childhood, and eventual citizenship. It would be an eminent gain for society if the number of births could vary in direct ratio to prospects for adequate care of children.

The development of latent powers and the mastery over nature are responsible for whatever advances man has made away from his primordial states of states of animalism and savagery. Out of an initial stage of ignorance as to what caused births, through a prolonged stage of superstition regarding these phenomenon, the race has advanced into scientific knowledge of how to control births in other ways than by abstinence from natural living. But this knowledge is not universal. A fortunate few who have it who have it are indifferent about sharing it with others, and there are large groups who deliberately and energetically strive to prevent its spread. It is this condition, doubtless more than any other factor, which has produced the six million children who are public charges.

More than one million women have written me, some of them tragic, pitiful letters, asking for advice on how to prevent unwanted additions to families already too large. According to our present Federal laws it is forbidden to convey the desired information either through the mails or by common carriers. Some of these women are tuberculosis, some have heart trouble, some have no means of support. Others have equally valid reasons for wanting to know the technique of prevention, but if a physician were to write a letter, even to one of his own patients, giving advice where to go for contraceptive instruction, and were to mail that letter, he could be sent to the penitentiary for doing so.

A fight to remove such restrictions is being conducted by the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control, of which I am president. Bills are now pending before the Senate and the House of Representatives , which, if passed, will permit the use of the mails and common carriers for contraceptive information and supplies intended for use by licensed physicians, chartered medical colleges, licensed hospitals and clinics, and by druggists in legitimate prescription business.

An extremely important factor in regulating population growth is education. Of no less importance is technical assistance. To meet these needs an extension of birth control clinics is necessary. At present there are in the United States about 157 birth control clinics, some of them restricted as to the help they may give. We need thousands of clinics, with greatly enlarged scope of activity. For this reason I suggest the following as the next article of the proposed Baby Code:

Article 2. Birth control clinics shall be permitted to function as services of city, county, or state health departments, or under the support of charity, or as non-profit self-sustaining agencies, subject to inspection and control by public authorities.

The important function of birth control clinics may in the future include advice for those who wish to have children as well as for those seeking a limitation. I do not mean to imply that clinical or medical advice can at present be as effective in birth promotion as it is in birth control, but nevertheless I feel that the advance of physiology, biology, and medicine may add notably to effectiveness in dealing with those who are barren and the sterile through functional disorders so that such persons may become parents when they want to do so. At any rate, I want to make the point that the tragedy of the babies is not so much that the grand total is too large, but that there are too many in families that do not want them, cannot take care of them, and should not have them.

If education, technical assistance, and public opinion fail to limit the number of babies within certain groups of the population to the country’s capacity for taking care of them, then it may be advisable to adopt more drastic procedure. I hesitate to suggest when this might be, because so many of us Americans are afraid of any new forms of “regimentation.” It will probably always be said that sex relations and parenthood are matters too intimate for any interference by public authorities. Of course, there is already a considerable amount of interference, or, if you prefer the term, regulation through marriage and divorce laws. I wonder if it will also become necessary to establish a system of birth permits. At present a marriage license is a birth permit, as well a a permit for a man and a woman to maintain a common household. Suppose, for purposes of discussion of something that may not prove to be practicable, we add the following clauses to the proposed Baby Code:

Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice. But for purposes of discussion let the clauses stand. Suppose that we had such regulations, and suppose that couples went ahead and had children without permits and regardless of the law. Well, we should be no worse off in the matter of births than we are now. Certainly the regulations would not increase the production of children in the wrong families; the tendency would be the other way. However, a general respect for the law regarding birth permits might be fostered by punishing transgressors. Society could not very well put a couple into jail for having a baby without permission; and in the case of paupers a fine could not be collected. How then should the guilty be punished? By blacklisting? By depravation of certain civil rights, such as the right to vote? If punishment is not practicable, perhaps we can go the other way around and consider awards. If it is wise to pay farmers for not raising cotton or wheat, it may be equally wise to pay certain couples for not having children.

Considering this question leads us inevitably to the question of quotas. What is social planning without a quota? But a little thinking soon reveals the difficulty of establishing any numerical quota for births. It does not seem feasible to fix a given number of births as desirable for a county, or any other political division, during a particular year. Variations of birth rate within social classes might not affect the total number and yet might in one county improve the situation and in another make it worse. But perhaps something might be done by seeking a definite ratio between the birth rate and an index of child welfare, this index to be the opposite of what we may call child illfare. I suggest the following clause:

Article 7. Every country shall be assisted administratively by the state in the effort to maintain a direct ratio between the county birth rate and its index of child welfare. Whenever the county records for any given year show an unfavorable variation from this ratio the county concerned shall be taxed by the state according to the degree of the variation. The revenues thus obtained shall be expended by the state within the given county either in giving financial support to birth control clinics or in other ways calculated to improve the situation involved.

Assuming that the social workers and statisticians would not have serious difficulty in devising and keeping up an index of child welfare, the proposed scheme would, I think, be effective. The main result would be the creation of a strong community sentiment in favor of helping those couples who wish to prevent conception because they foresee that the children if born would be doomed to suffering. For the couples who are not willing to cooperate moral pressure would be brought to bear.

Finally we have the problem of how to stop reproduction by those who are recognised as biologically unfit, or who have inheritable diseases. According to the report of experts made at the famous White House Conference on Child Health and Protection, there were in 1930 more than 10,000,000 handicapped children in the United States. This total included those improperly nourished, the tuberculous, those with weak or damaged hearts, the crippled, blind, and deaf, those with defective speech, and the mentally retarded, delinquent, and dependent. A large proportion of these were doomed before they were born. Now that they are here we must take care of them, at enormous cost. Billions of dollars must be raised ever year by taxation or charitable contribution to pay for the treatment and care of individuals who have been handicapped for birth.

Many groups of the socially unfit, as for example the feeble-minded and the criminal, are not sufficiently susceptible to education or the moral pressure of the community. For such people sterilization is indicated. Some states already have sterilization laws, and others should adopt similar measures. While there must be ample safeguards in administering such laws so that the rights of the individual are considered, the paramount need is to protect society as a whole. Sterilization would go far in reducing human misery, not to speak of the financial saving in the upkeep of the unfit offspring. Therefore I suggest the following clause in the Baby Code:

Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable disease, and others found biologically unfit by authorities qualified judge should be sterilized or, in cases of doubt, should be so isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.

I do not pretend in the above suggestions to have arrived at the formulation of a workable baby code, but my puzzling over this problem has convinced me that America needs such a code. I should be very much interested in hearing the suggestions of others.

This is the great day of social planning. We have come to believe in planning the production and distribution of goods. We plan methods of governing cities, states, and the nation. We plan jobs, and leisure-time activities, and vacations. We plan almost everything, big and little, except families. It can scarcely do any harm and it may do a vast amount of good to engage in thoughtful, planning of our population, a population with a still larger percentage of happy families.

Subject Terms:


"unfit" to reproduce, descriptions of
birth control, clinics and leagues
birth control, laws and legislation, Federal
child welfare
children, unwanted
conferences, White House Conference on Child health and Protection, 1930
family size, class-based
mentally disabled and diseased, birth control and
physically disabled and diseased
population, birth control and
population growth, regulation of
sterilization, methods
sterilization, MS on
Copyright 2003. Margaret Sanger Project


----------



## Asclepias

g5000 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 6 of her book:
> Woman and the NEW RACE:
> [We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
> 
> You have shown us how she feels abut Catholics.  But large families aren't genetic.
> Here she is, in her book, explaining the reason for sterilization and segregation, specifically tainted progeny and objectionable traits they transmit to offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an online copy of Women and the New Race.
> 
> That quote is not in there.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...

When I researched all of this about 5 years ago I found that many of the statements attributed to her were outright lies or at the very least taken out of context. People (both Black and white) put in a lot of time to portray her a certain way.


----------



## g5000

Sanger did believe in negative eugenics.

The quote Irish Ram misappropriated came from My Way To Peace, not her book.



> This body to direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and to direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.
> 
> The main objects of the Population Congress would be:
> (a) to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.
> (b) to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen, decreasingthe death rate below its present mark of 11.
> (c) keep the doors of Immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feeble-minded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.
> (d) apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization, and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
> (e) to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born feeble-minded parents, the government would pension all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.
> (f) the whole dysgenic population would have its choice of segregation or sterilization.
> (g) there would be farm lands and homesteads where these segregated persons would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.


----------



## ClosedCaption

SassyIrishLass said:


> Also Gov. Jindal will launch and investigation.
> 
> Planned Parenthood responds Nucatola s just talking about reimbursements Update Jindal orders LA probe halt to PP license Hot Air



So since you do know how to provide links its safe to say that you made up that bullshit about Sanger.  Why should I p'own you when you p'owned yourself


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

g5000 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 6 of her book:
> Woman and the NEW RACE:
> [We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
> 
> You have shown us how she feels abut Catholics.  But large families aren't genetic.
> Here she is, in her book, explaining the reason for sterilization and segregation, specifically tainted progeny and objectionable traits they transmit to offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an online copy of Women and the New Race.
> 
> That quote is not in there.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...

Nothing has ever been edited before right? Thank god we got the Pink Panther here to set the record straight


----------



## Coyote

The Irish Ram said:


> America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934
> 
> Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.


[/quote]

The linnk doesn't work but I found it anyway: The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger Web Edition

Worth reading the entire article (which has nothing to do with race).  Again - a sentiment common in that era.  Eugenics was unfortunately a popular school of thought with poor and working class people along with non-white races considered inferior.




> April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108
> 
> Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.



If you had read the entire article - instead of snipping - you would have realized she was referring to the "working class" poor people and morality.

Here is a much more readible link: The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger Web Edition
_All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class, and if morality is to mean anything at all to us, we must regard all the changes which tend toward the uplift and survival of the human race as moral. _Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race.​



> _Woman, Morality, and Birth Control_. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
> 
> We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
> 
> Hitler's remedy for the "perpetually pregnant"  was gas.  Sanger's was control of the wombs of others.



That particular quote is the one that is misused and taken out of context.  Most of Sanger's work focused on combatting the poverty she saw driven by the inability of families to control the number of children they had and get out of the cycle of poverty.  Her attitudes towards the poor and races was what we would consider today to be racist.  Your source *does not even show the quote.*

Here is more from "the Negro Project": http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/articles/bc_or_race_control.php
_
What it became was not the project Sanger had first envisioned. As she wrote in an initial fund-raising request to Albert Lasker, the wealthy advertising executive just beginning his post-business career in medical philanthropy, *she simply hoped to help "a group notoriously underprivileged and handicapped to a large measure by a ‘caste' system that operates as an added weight upon their efforts to get a fair share of the better things in life. To give them the means of helping themselves is perhaps the richest gift of all. We believe birth control knowledge brought to this group, is the most direct, constructive aid that can be given them to improve their immediate situation.*" Sanger viewed the Negro Project as another effort to help African-Americans gain better access to safe contraception and maintain birth control services in their community as she had attempted to do in Harlem a decade earlier when Sanger's Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB), in cooperation with the New York Urban League, opened a birth control clinic there. (MS to Lasker, July 10, 1939, Mary Lasker Papers, Columbia University (to be microfilmed in a later addendum to the MSM)_​
So again - why is she so villified?  Her attitudes were common to her era but hardly extreme compared to others in that time.  Her huge achievement was to legalize and make available birth control - which she saw as the means for women to get control of their lives and get out of poverty.  Unlike what some claim - it had nothing to do with "sex without consequences" as she only intended it to be for married women as per the morality of her time.

If she is so evil, then do you consider Thomas Jefferson, also a product of his time, to be vile?  Or do his achievements trump his attitudes - again, typical of his era?

From: Common-place Of Racism and Remembrance he defends anti-miscegenation.
_
Here's how Jefferson closed his chapter on "Laws": "I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances,* are inferior to the whites in the endowments of both body and mind. * It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse *an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them?* This unfortunate difference of color, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people."


This argument for the separation of the races based on the natural inferiority of blacks derived from Jefferson's "observations" *of the childlike simplicity of blacks, their wild imaginations, their incapacity to reason and create serious art, their "disagreeable odour."* Jefferson also emphasized that blacks exhibited a uniform aesthetic preference for the "flowing hair" and "elegant symmetry of form" of whites, a preference as uniform as "the preference of the Oran-ootan for the black women over those of his own species." _​


----------



## konradv

The Irish Ram said:


> Cancer is vile.  Pregnancy avoidable.   I was pregnant twice, but it only lasted for nine months each.  Then I prevented it because 2 children is what I wanted.  *We have lots of ways to prevent pregnancy.  *To the perpetually pregnant, close your legs, buy a condom, take a pill, take one the next day.  Stop having perpetual sex.  If we can teach a child how to change a penis into a vagina,  we can teach a child how not to get pregnant.   Your claim of being a slave to perpetual pregnancy is bullshit.


Well that's what sex education is all about, but it won't work if "abstinence only" is all that can be taught.  People will have sex.  There's no stopping it.  What people need to know is how to prevent pregnancy, if that's not what they want.


----------



## The Irish Ram

> The parents who desire to limit their families show intelligence and responsibility. They should be encouraged and assisted in every means at the command of science and the state.
> 
> Such is the object of the American Birth Control League (104 Fifth avenue, New York City, which aims to arouse interest among the American people to bring to birth a better quality in our race, as well as to establish clinics in all thickly populated districts where poor overburdened wretched mothers may be instructed in the methods of birth control.
> 
> We need one generation of birth control to weed out the misfits, to breed self-reliant, intelligent, responsible individuals.
> 
> Our immigration laws forbid the entrance into this country of paupers, insane, feeble-minded and diseased people from other lands. Why not extend the idea and discourage the bringing to birth these same types within our borders. Let us stop reproducing and perpetuation disease, insanity and ignorance



So much for immigration^ lefties.  But superior race and weeding out misfits is touching though......


----------



## g5000

Grampa Murked U said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 6 of her book:
> Woman and the NEW RACE:
> [We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
> 
> You have shown us how she feels abut Catholics.  But large families aren't genetic.
> Here she is, in her book, explaining the reason for sterilization and segregation, specifically tainted progeny and objectionable traits they transmit to offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an online copy of Women and the New Race.
> 
> That quote is not in there.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing has ever been edited before right? Thank god we got the Pink Panther here to set the record straight
Click to expand...

It's not there.  Never has been. Put down the conspiracy crack pipe.

The quote is from an entirely different tract Sanger wrote.


----------



## Coyote

The Irish Ram said:


> The parents who desire to limit their families show intelligence and responsibility. They should be encouraged and assisted in every means at the command of science and the state.
> 
> Such is the object of the American Birth Control League (104 Fifth avenue, New York City, which aims to arouse interest among the American people to bring to birth a better quality in our race, as well as to establish clinics in all thickly populated districts where poor overburdened wretched mothers may be instructed in the methods of birth control.
> 
> We need one generation of birth control to weed out the misfits, to breed self-reliant, intelligent, responsible individuals.
> 
> Our immigration laws forbid the entrance into this country of paupers, insane, feeble-minded and diseased people from other lands. Why not extend the idea and discourage the bringing to birth these same types within our borders. Let us stop reproducing and perpetuation disease, insanity and ignorance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much for immigration^ lefties.  But superior race and weeding out misfits is touching though......
Click to expand...


The only person here who seems to be going on about "superior races" and "weeding out misfits" is you.

What do you have against birth control?


----------



## Coyote

g5000 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 6 of her book:
> Woman and the NEW RACE:
> [We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
> 
> You have shown us how she feels abut Catholics.  But large families aren't genetic.
> Here she is, in her book, explaining the reason for sterilization and segregation, specifically tainted progeny and objectionable traits they transmit to offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an online copy of Women and the New Race.
> 
> That quote is not in there.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing has ever been edited before right? Thank god we got the Pink Panther here to set the record straight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not there.  Never has been. Put down the conspiracy crack pipe.
> 
> The quote is from an entirely different tract Sanger wrote.
Click to expand...


They take quotes from the same anti-Sanger websites and the sources are often erroneous and sloppy.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

g5000 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 6 of her book:
> Woman and the NEW RACE:
> [We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
> 
> You have shown us how she feels abut Catholics.  But large families aren't genetic.
> Here she is, in her book, explaining the reason for sterilization and segregation, specifically tainted progeny and objectionable traits they transmit to offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an online copy of Women and the New Race.
> 
> That quote is not in there.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing has ever been edited before right? Thank god we got the Pink Panther here to set the record straight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not there.  Never has been. Put down the conspiracy crack pipe.
> 
> The quote is from an entirely different tract Sanger wrote.
Click to expand...

I don't know or care if it was there. I just wanted to point out your lemming nature.


----------



## g5000

We have retards who claim Sanger wanted to exterminate blacks, and their only proof is a completely out of context quote, which when viewed in context, completely obliterates the claim.

And then we have a very special retard who links to a Mike Wallace interview as her evidence Sanger said the goal of PP was to exterminate blacks.  The hilarious part is that neither Wallace or Sanger mention Planned Parenthood.  Or blacks!

Clearly, the tard didn't even bother watching her own link!

Just what kind of special retardation do you have to be suffering from to make a colossally stupid mistake like that?!?

Was she thinking, "Well, the video is 25 minutes long.  I don't have that kind of attention span, but she MUST have said something about exterminating blacks in an interview that long!"


And then we have a quote allegedly from Sanger about killing kids because they are a nuisance.  A quote Sanger never actually said.

The mountain of bullshit is getting really high, kids.


----------



## Coyote

Sangers attitudes were common to her time and yes, racist - as were many great historical figures.  But calling for genocide of a race?  That's fictionalized.


----------



## The Irish Ram

BlackGenocide.org The Negro Project

She's a peach alright.......


----------



## Coyote

The Irish Ram said:


> BlackGenocide.org The Negro Project
> 
> She's a peach alright.......




Black genocide - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Again, the same out of context quotes and lack of sources.

By the way - do you think Thomas Jefferson is a "peach"?


----------



## The Irish Ram

> *The Harlem Clinic*
> 
> In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL’s perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this "experimental clinic," which officially opened on November 21, 1930. Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business. In addition to being thought of as "inferior" and disproportionately represented in the underclass, according to the clinic’s own files used to justify its "work," blacks in Harlem:
> 
> 
> were segregated in an over-populated area (224,760 of 330,000 of greater New York’s  population lived in Harlem during the late 1920s and 1930s);
> comprised 12 percent of New York City’s population, but accounted for 18.4 percent of New York City’s unemployment;
> had an infant mortality rate of 101 per 1000 births, compared to 56 among whites;
> had a death rate from tuberculosis–237 per 100,000–that was highest in central Harlem, out of all of New York City.
> Although the clinic served whites as well as blacks, it "was established for the benefit of the colored people." Sanger wrote this in a letter to Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois




She's a helper.  Her love of the blacks has me wellin up....


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Coyote said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chapter 6 of her book:
> Woman and the NEW RACE:
> [We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
> 
> You have shown us how she feels abut Catholics.  But large families aren't genetic.
> Here she is, in her book, explaining the reason for sterilization and segregation, specifically tainted progeny and objectionable traits they transmit to offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an online copy of Women and the New Race.
> 
> That quote is not in there.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing has ever been edited before right? Thank god we got the Pink Panther here to set the record straight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not there.  Never has been. Put down the conspiracy crack pipe.
> 
> The quote is from an entirely different tract Sanger wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They take quotes from the same anti-Sanger websites and the sources are often erroneous and sloppy.
Click to expand...

Who is they? I've never to my knowledge posted erroneous links. I post a lot of bullshit when the mood strikes me but never with the intent to deceive


----------



## Asclepias

The Irish Ram said:


> BlackGenocide.org The Negro Project
> 
> She's a peach alright.......



Margaret Sanger and the African American Community


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Coyote said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> BlackGenocide.org The Negro Project
> 
> She's a peach alright.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black genocide - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Again, the same out of context quotes and lack of sources.
> 
> By the way - do you think Thomas Jefferson is a "peach"?
Click to expand...

Wiki is NOT a trustworthy source. Any contributor can alter the content


----------



## Coyote

Grampa Murked U said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> BlackGenocide.org The Negro Project
> 
> She's a peach alright.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black genocide - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Again, the same out of context quotes and lack of sources.
> 
> By the way - do you think Thomas Jefferson is a "peach"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wiki is NOT a trustworthy source. Any contributor can alter the content
Click to expand...


It requires sources - you can always go to the sources, it also has a vetting process. It's a decent first source to go to find information.  Then you can track down the sources.
Study shows Wikipedia Accuracy is 97.5


----------



## Coyote

The Irish Ram said:


> *The Harlem Clinic*
> 
> In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL’s perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this "experimental clinic," which officially opened on November 21, 1930. Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business. In addition to being thought of as "inferior" and disproportionately represented in the underclass, according to the clinic’s own files used to justify its "work," blacks in Harlem:
> 
> 
> were segregated in an over-populated area (224,760 of 330,000 of greater New York’s  population lived in Harlem during the late 1920s and 1930s);
> comprised 12 percent of New York City’s population, but accounted for 18.4 percent of New York City’s unemployment;
> had an infant mortality rate of 101 per 1000 births, compared to 56 among whites;
> had a death rate from tuberculosis–237 per 100,000–that was highest in central Harlem, out of all of New York City.
> Although the clinic served whites as well as blacks, it "was established for the benefit of the colored people." Sanger wrote this in a letter to Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's a helper.  Her love of the blacks has me wellin up....
Click to expand...


What do you think of Thomas Jefferson's love of blacks?  "wellin up" are you?


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Harlem Clinic*
> 
> In 1929, 10 years before Sanger created the Negro Project, the ABCL laid the groundwork for a clinic in Harlem, a largely black section of New York City. It was the dawn of the Great Depression, and for blacks that meant double the misery. Blacks faced harsher conditions of desperation and privation because of widespread racial prejudice and discrimination. From the ABCL’s perspective, Harlem was the ideal place for this "experimental clinic," which officially opened on November 21, 1930. Many blacks looked to escape their adverse circumstances and therefore did not recognize the eugenic undercurrent of the clinic. The clinic relied on the generosity of private foundations to remain in business. In addition to being thought of as "inferior" and disproportionately represented in the underclass, according to the clinic’s own files used to justify its "work," blacks in Harlem:
> 
> 
> were segregated in an over-populated area (224,760 of 330,000 of greater New York’s  population lived in Harlem during the late 1920s and 1930s);
> comprised 12 percent of New York City’s population, but accounted for 18.4 percent of New York City’s unemployment;
> had an infant mortality rate of 101 per 1000 births, compared to 56 among whites;
> had a death rate from tuberculosis–237 per 100,000–that was highest in central Harlem, out of all of New York City.
> Although the clinic served whites as well as blacks, it "was established for the benefit of the colored people." Sanger wrote this in a letter to Dr. W. E. Burghardt DuBois
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's a helper.  Her love of the blacks has me wellin up....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think of Thomas Jefferson's love of blacks?  "wellin up" are you?
Click to expand...

 The difference is, you won't find patriots defending his bigotry, or denying his slave owner status.


----------



## Edgetho

dimocraps are lying scum.....

Sanger was a stone-cold racist.
Period


----------



## The Irish Ram

Sanger was a nurse *who testified before the U.S. Senate in 1916* to call for the formation of the Population Congress that would seek to employ Negative Eugenics to separate humanity. Drastically limiting immigration of those considered ‘unfit’ was a mainstay of Sanger and her fellow eugenists. Their draconian proposals of forced segregation, for American citizens, were commonly held views among these ‘progressives’ who sought to achieve a superior and more intelligent race.
*“…apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted…to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be…for the period of their entire lives.”– Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review, “Plan for Peace”, April 1932, Vol 26, Number 4*

Margaret Sanger, an American elite (whose second marriage to oil tycoon Noah Slee provided much of the financial backing for her cause) is the mother of Birth Control in America. Although a mother herself, she abandoned her own children for something she felt was more worthy of her time and passion.  Some herald her as a hero that advanced women’s rights to new heights. But it’s important to understand the context in which she championed such ‘rights’. It was not out of benevolence but a deep-seated hatred of ‘forced’ motherhood, chastity, of the ‘inferior classes’, of religion (especially Catholicism), and racial elements that were a hindrance to the breeding of a ‘race of thoroughbreds’.3 She wasn’t interested in removing the cause of poverty, illiteracy, illegitimate births, or other social ills–just attacking the result…innocent life…which inherently had nothing to do with any of the conditions in which he or she was given life.

*“Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease…Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.”– Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, Chapter V, “Cruelty of Charity”*
This is only a small fraction of the darker legacy associated with her name. It has been well-

 documented that Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Philosophy was firmly rooted in negative eugenics. She was the founder of the American Birth Control League, which in 1943, was renamed Planned Parenthood.4 She was funded by the same elite eugenists (i.e. John D. Rockefeller) who also, concurrently, funded Eugen Fischer and his work at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (responsible for the Nazi scientific theories of racial hygiene that led the the slaughter of millions of Jews, gypsies, blacks and others deemed the inferior race).5 Many of whom Sanger associated with, professionally and editorially (writers/contributors to her Birth Control Review publication) are found, by scholars, to have greatly influenced Nazi racist ideology. 

To carry out her population control plans, her organization, American Birth Control League that she founded in 1921, opened its facilities in predominantly black, immigrant and poor area of New York City.  (This would be the template for the majority of Planned Parenthood clinics.) In 1939, with the help of wealthy Americans moguls (such as Clarence Gamble, of Procter & Gamble, and Mary Lasker) launched her racially motivated population control scheme that she called “Negro Project”,  recruiting black preachers to sermonize her population control message


----------



## amrchaos

I went and looked at this video


.....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.

Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.


----------



## koshergrl

amrchaos said:


> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.


Er, no. Selling baby parts is illegal. As is partial birth abortion, which she stated they were doing, and described how they were doing. In detail.

PS...I will remember that you stated once upon a time that the video was cool. Like the next time you claim that PP would never consider engaging in harvesting body parts or performing illegal abortions.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Are we still pretending she's a champion of the black communities?

*invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366) *

In 1926, Margaret Sanger (the foundress of Planned Parenthood) was the keynote speaker at a Ku Klux Klan Rally in Silver Lake, New Jersey. As a result of this speech, Sanger immediately received at least a dozen more invitations to speak to similar groups. 

How do we know this?

Margaret Sanger admits it in her own Autobiography:

_Always to me any aroused group was a good group, and therefore I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the *Ku Klux Klan*...As someone came out of the hall I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses. I waited another twenty minutes. It was warmer and I did not mind so much. Eventually the lights were switched on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. *A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered."* (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)_

Several years later, Margaret Sanger wrote the following in a letter to Clarence Gamble:

_"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. *We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. *and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."_ Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. 

Eighty years after Margaret Sanger's Historic speech to the Ku Klux Klan, the following situation exists:

*A black baby is three times more likely to be murdered in the womb than a white baby. 

*Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent. 

*Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined. 

*Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history. 

*Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. 

*About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions


----------



## Edgetho

amrchaos said:


> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.



So you're perfectly fine with it?

Absent them breaking any laws, you're okay with them dissecting babies and selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard?

You're down with that?

Of course you are, you're a scum of the earth dimocrap.


----------



## The Irish Ram

> Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor



It is when you killed the cadaver to get to the profitable parts.


----------



## koshergrl

The Irish Ram said:


> Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is when you killed the cadaver to get to the profitable parts.
Click to expand...

 And put another person at risk of death to do it.


----------



## hadit

amrchaos said:


> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.


Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.


----------



## hadit

The Irish Ram said:


> Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is when you killed the cadaver to get to the profitable parts.
Click to expand...

And did it without prior consent.


----------



## BlindBoo

Edgetho said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're perfectly fine with it?
> 
> Absent them breaking any laws, you're okay with them dissecting babies and selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard?
> 
> You're down with that?
> 
> Of course you are, you're a scum of the earth dimocrap.
Click to expand...


You mean salvaging the donated tissue for scientific research, yeah sure, better than burning it for electricity don't you think?


----------



## JFish123

Margaret Sanger was crazy. A racist, bigoted, eugenecist. Wake the heck up people  stop living in Planned Parenthood Fantasy Land


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NYcarbineer

Clementine said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What?   You want a history lesson?    You didn't learn about her years ago.    Your problem.
Click to expand...


Ah, so you concede the story is untrue.

No shit.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Trump said some of the illegals coming across our border are bad people, and the left went where there is no context to decree that, TRUMP HATES MEXICANS.

Yet,  context after context has been offered from the mouth of Sanger and they want more context, plus more context to *prove* she was a  promoter of the superior race, and how to insure it.

It's like needing every word out of Hitler's mouth before conceding that he was a  promoter of the superior race, and how to insure it.

Hitler was responsible for the "Jewish" project.  Sanger was responsible for the "Negro" project.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlindBoo said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're perfectly fine with it?
> 
> Absent them breaking any laws, you're okay with them dissecting babies and selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard?
> 
> You're down with that?
> 
> Of course you are, you're a scum of the earth dimocrap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean salvaging the donated tissue for scientific research, yeah sure, better than burning it for electricity don't you think?
Click to expand...


It's illegal....not that hard to grasp


----------



## NYcarbineer

SassyIrishLass said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
Click to expand...


She said this:

*"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."*


----------



## JGalt

toxicmedia said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.
> 
> I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.
> 
> Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.
> 
> If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.
> 
> I like Walker. I may vote for the man.
> 
> I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".
> 
> Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right used these issues as wedge issues in the past.  Now that the nation has decided the Democrats are right, they are going to try to ignore them.  Why should Walker be permitted to not tell us what he will do on these two issues?  He has advanced draconian anti-abortion legislation in his state; laws that treat women like children.  Those actions are entirely relevant to whether or not he should get a person's vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's "draconian" about having an expectant mother to have an ultra-sound before having an abortion? Is defunding an organization started by a self-admitted racist who sought to reduce the population of blacks "draconian"? And how does any bill Walker passed treat woman like "children"? His own Lt. Governor is a woman, are you saying Walker hates women? His concealed carry law gives women the same right to defend themselves, as men. Besides, what difference does it make what he does? You're not going to vote for him or any other Republican, you're going to waste your vote on "Hillary/Sanders/Biden/Insert Communist of your choice here."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was one of the provisions.  The law that requires that doctors have admitting privileges is absolutely designed to make it more difficult for women to have a perfectly legal procedure.  There is no reason for this law other than to interfere with the right of a woman to have access to abortion.  There is no medical reason to require an ultrasound. None.  It is a law that suggests that women are really not aware of what the are doing when they decide to have an abortion.  It is a violation of their rights to force them to undergo any kind of medical procedure.  As for the idiotic comments about guns, was it unlawful from women to carry a concealed weapon before while it was legal for men?  What a moronic example.  And your comments about Planned parenthood mimic the same lies that other of your ilk spread.  I have voted for Republicans.. for the US Senate, for Congress and for Governor of my state.  I will not vote for Walker because of his far right views; views that are out of touch with the American public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how much of that is pandering to idiot righties...but the anti abortion issue, above all others, is rank with hysteria and ignorance. And unusually enough, not from both sides. It's a rare example of righties being wrong about everything on one issue
Click to expand...



Conservatives are not anti-abortion. While we believe abortion is basically the murder of an unborn human being, there are special cases where abortion is justified.

Conservatives mainly have an issue with taxpayer-funded abortions, or the forcing of religious-based medical facilities to perform them.

We also believe it's up to each individual state to define abortion policies, not one broad policy dictated by the federal government. After all, abortion is a violation of that unborn person's Constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sadly, those on the left consider an unborn child to be no more than a "growth" which can be removed and tossed in a trash can.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Wikipedia: Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[47] Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[47]
> 
> She gave one lecture on birth control.  So?
> 
> Hardly "speeches"
> 
> The funny thing about rightwinger attitudes towards Sanger is this.  They try to tie her in to abortion - but Sanger was actually opposed to abortion.  Her cause was solely birth control.  So, that's one obvious lie.
> 
> The second is the distortion of her comments to make the claim that she want's exterminate black people - another lie.  There is nothing in her comments to support that.
> 
> Was she racist?  Her opinions reflect the prevalent attitudes in our country during that era - attitudes in fact, that still pop up today in the generaters of "feral negro" and "welfare queen" topics.
> 
> _*Sanger's writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. *In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."[93]_​So...why do the rightwingers hate her so much they need to villify her with falsehoods?  She wasn't anti-abortion.  She was no more racist that many of her time, including exhaulted rightwing heros.  What she did was free women - MARRIED women (because she still felt marriage was necessary) from a life of unending childbirth and the physical ailments and poverty that often resulted from that.
> 
> She gave women the same sexual freedom that men have long claimed and my god they hate for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki is not a reliable source
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nice dodge.
> 
> Wiki is more neutral and reliable than most - and it gives original sources - like her autobiography.  Or is that unreliable too?
Click to expand...


You've sat and called out every source Irish Ram has put up unreliable and then quote Wiki? LMAO


----------



## bodecea

The Irish Ram said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> vile.
Click to expand...

So you think that liberating women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy is vile.  Ok.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Irish Ram said:


> Trump said some of the illegals coming across our border are bad people, and the left went where there is no context to decree that, TRUMP HATES MEXICANS.
> 
> Yet,  context after context has been offered from the mouth of Sanger and they want more context, plus more context to *prove* she was a  promoter of the superior race, and how to insure it.
> 
> It's like needing every word out of Hitler's mouth before conceding that he was a racist promoter of the superior race, and how to insure it.
> 
> Hitler was responsible for the "Jewish" project.  Sanger was responsible for the "Negro" project.



The core contingent of the eugenics movement in the US in the early 20th century were the anti-immigration crowd.


----------



## Clementine

The Irish Ram said:


> America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934
> 
> Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
> 
> April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108
> 
> Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.
> 
> _Woman, Morality, and Birth Control_. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
> 
> We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
> 
> Hitler's remedy for the "perpetually pregnant"  was gas.  Sanger's was control of the wombs of others.



This shows that in 1922, people already understood Margaret's motives and she was seeking to sugarcoat things in order to get them to go along.    In later years, she toned it down and only talked about helping women because that was what people wanted to hear.    I think she was radical and wished to reduce the population of blacks and religious people.   

No, she didn't want the word to go out that she was a racist and had to take steps to convince people otherwise.   I think many liberals today love the idea of a cleaner race and many admit to wanting population control.


----------



## NYcarbineer

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Wikipedia: Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[47] Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[47]
> 
> She gave one lecture on birth control.  So?
> 
> Hardly "speeches"
> 
> The funny thing about rightwinger attitudes towards Sanger is this.  They try to tie her in to abortion - but Sanger was actually opposed to abortion.  Her cause was solely birth control.  So, that's one obvious lie.
> 
> The second is the distortion of her comments to make the claim that she want's exterminate black people - another lie.  There is nothing in her comments to support that.
> 
> Was she racist?  Her opinions reflect the prevalent attitudes in our country during that era - attitudes in fact, that still pop up today in the generaters of "feral negro" and "welfare queen" topics.
> 
> _*Sanger's writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. *In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."[93]_​So...why do the rightwingers hate her so much they need to villify her with falsehoods?  She wasn't anti-abortion.  She was no more racist that many of her time, including exhaulted rightwing heros.  What she did was free women - MARRIED women (because she still felt marriage was necessary) from a life of unending childbirth and the physical ailments and poverty that often resulted from that.
> 
> She gave women the same sexual freedom that men have long claimed and my god they hate for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki is not a reliable source
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nice dodge.
> 
> Wiki is more neutral and reliable than most - and it gives original sources - like her autobiography.  Or is that unreliable too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've sat and called out every source Irish Ram has put up unreliable and then quote Wiki? LMAO
Click to expand...


The wiki quotes are sourced.  That's what the numbers in brackets are, fucktard.


----------



## bodecea

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
Click to expand...

Someone provided some photoshopped ones before...but they were.....well...photoshopped.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Clementine said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934
> 
> Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
> 
> April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108
> 
> Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.
> 
> _Woman, Morality, and Birth Control_. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
> 
> We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
> 
> Hitler's remedy for the "perpetually pregnant"  was gas.  Sanger's was control of the wombs of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shows that in 1922, people already understood Margaret's motives and she was seeking to sugarcoat things in order to get them to go along.    In later years, she toned it down and only talked about helping women because that was what people wanted to hear.    I think she was radical and wished to reduce the population of blacks and religious people.
> 
> No, she didn't want the word to go out that she was a racist and had to take steps to convince people otherwise.   I think many liberals today love the idea of a cleaner race and many admit to wanting population control.
Click to expand...


So we should outlaw birth control because Margaret Sanger supported it?  Are you retarded?


----------



## paperview

The Irish Ram said:


> ...Hitler was responsible for the "Jewish" project.  Sanger was responsible for the "Negro" project.



Makes you wonder why Martin Luther King called his Margaret Sanger Award his most cherished possession.


----------



## Clementine

Do any liberals have an opinion on Planned Parenthood illegally selling body parts?    Not clumps of cells, but human body parts from the aborted fetuses?  

I know you guys go all out to defend that Sanger bitch, but none of you are upset with today's PP committing a crime?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Clementine said:


> Do any liberals have an opinion on Planned Parenthood illegally selling body parts?    Not clumps of cells, but human body parts from the aborted fetuses?
> 
> I know you guys go all out to defend that Sanger bitch, but none of you are upset with today's PP committing a crime?



Let's wait for an indictment.


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From Wikipedia: Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[47] Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[47]
> 
> She gave one lecture on birth control.  So?
> 
> Hardly "speeches"
> 
> The funny thing about rightwinger attitudes towards Sanger is this.  They try to tie her in to abortion - but Sanger was actually opposed to abortion.  Her cause was solely birth control.  So, that's one obvious lie.
> 
> The second is the distortion of her comments to make the claim that she want's exterminate black people - another lie.  There is nothing in her comments to support that.
> 
> Was she racist?  Her opinions reflect the prevalent attitudes in our country during that era - attitudes in fact, that still pop up today in the generaters of "feral negro" and "welfare queen" topics.
> 
> _*Sanger's writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. *In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."[93]_​So...why do the rightwingers hate her so much they need to villify her with falsehoods?  She wasn't anti-abortion.  She was no more racist that many of her time, including exhaulted rightwing heros.  What she did was free women - MARRIED women (because she still felt marriage was necessary) from a life of unending childbirth and the physical ailments and poverty that often resulted from that.
> 
> She gave women the same sexual freedom that men have long claimed and my god they hate for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki is not a reliable source
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nice dodge.
> 
> Wiki is more neutral and reliable than most - and it gives original sources - like her autobiography.  Or is that unreliable too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've sat and called out every source Irish Ram has put up unreliable and then quote Wiki? LMAO
Click to expand...




Clementine said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934
> 
> Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
> 
> April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108
> 
> Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.
> 
> _Woman, Morality, and Birth Control_. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
> 
> We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
> 
> Hitler's remedy for the "perpetually pregnant"  was gas.  Sanger's was control of the wombs of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shows that in 1922, people already understood Margaret's motives and she was seeking to sugarcoat things in order to get them to go along.    In later years, she toned it down and only talked about helping women because that was what people wanted to hear.    I think she was radical and wished to reduce the population of blacks and religious people.
> 
> No, she didn't want the word to go out that she was a racist and had to take steps to convince people otherwise. *  I think many liberals today love the idea of a cleaner race and many admit to wanting population control*.
Click to expand...


So was Thomas Jefferson but you guys love him!


----------



## Clementine

NYcarbineer said:


> So we should outlaw birth control because Margaret Sanger supported it?  Are you retarded?



You are an idiot.

Speak for yourself instead of putting words in other people's posts.   Proof you can't read what is written.

Stop pretending that Sanger's motives were pure.   They weren't.   She was a bitter woman.

No one said outlaw anything, except you. 

I must ask again if any liberals here have an opinion on Planned Parenthood committing crimes by selling body parts of aborted fetuses.    Is that okay with you libs that this business does as it pleases with no fear of reprisals?


----------



## Coyote

Clementine said:


> *Do any liberals have an opinion on Planned Parenthood illegally selling body parts?*    Not clumps of cells, but human body parts from the aborted fetuses?
> 
> I know you guys go all out to defend that Sanger bitch, but none of you are upset with today's PP committing a crime?



Yes. That opinion has been expressed.  Waiting to see more evidence - something beyond one heavily edited video.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Wikipedia: Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[47] Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[47]
> 
> She gave one lecture on birth control.  So?
> 
> Hardly "speeches"
> 
> The funny thing about rightwinger attitudes towards Sanger is this.  They try to tie her in to abortion - but Sanger was actually opposed to abortion.  Her cause was solely birth control.  So, that's one obvious lie.
> 
> The second is the distortion of her comments to make the claim that she want's exterminate black people - another lie.  There is nothing in her comments to support that.
> 
> Was she racist?  Her opinions reflect the prevalent attitudes in our country during that era - attitudes in fact, that still pop up today in the generaters of "feral negro" and "welfare queen" topics.
> 
> _*Sanger's writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. *In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."[93]_​So...why do the rightwingers hate her so much they need to villify her with falsehoods?  She wasn't anti-abortion.  She was no more racist that many of her time, including exhaulted rightwing heros.  What she did was free women - MARRIED women (because she still felt marriage was necessary) from a life of unending childbirth and the physical ailments and poverty that often resulted from that.
> 
> She gave women the same sexual freedom that men have long claimed and my god they hate for it!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wiki is not a reliable source
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nice dodge.
> 
> Wiki is more neutral and reliable than most - and it gives original sources - like her autobiography.  Or is that unreliable too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've sat and called out every source Irish Ram has put up unreliable and then quote Wiki? LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934
> 
> Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
> 
> April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108
> 
> Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.
> 
> _Woman, Morality, and Birth Control_. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
> 
> We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
> 
> Hitler's remedy for the "perpetually pregnant"  was gas.  Sanger's was control of the wombs of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows that in 1922, people already understood Margaret's motives and she was seeking to sugarcoat things in order to get them to go along.    In later years, she toned it down and only talked about helping women because that was what people wanted to hear.    I think she was radical and wished to reduce the population of blacks and religious people.
> 
> No, she didn't want the word to go out that she was a racist and had to take steps to convince people otherwise. *  I think many liberals today love the idea of a cleaner race and many admit to wanting population control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So was Thomas Jefferson but you guys love him!
Click to expand...

 
But we don't deny that he owned slaves. You people lie about Sanger to make her more palatable. As you lie about everything to make your death cult appealing and less monstrous.


----------



## koshergrl

Clementine said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we should outlaw birth control because Margaret Sanger supported it?  Are you retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> Speak for yourself instead of putting words in other people's posts.   Proof you can't read what is written.
> 
> Stop pretending that Sanger's motives were pure.   They weren't.   She was a bitter woman.
> 
> No one said outlaw anything, except you.
> 
> I must ask again if any liberals here have an opinion on Planned Parenthood committed crimes by selling body parts of aborted fetuses.    Is that okay with you libs that this business does as it pleases with no fear of reprisals?
Click to expand...

 Progressives are okay with the victimization of pregnant women, the illegal practices that put them at danger, the butchery of babies, and they're fine with the fact that it's all done in dirty, non-regulated facilities by insane clinicians who have no admitting rights to hospitals or any decent credentials, and who are admittedly only in it for the $$.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no. Selling baby parts is illegal. As is partial birth abortion, which she stated they were doing, and described how they were doing. In detail.
> 
> PS...I will remember that you stated once upon a time that the video was cool. Like the next time you claim that PP would never consider engaging in harvesting body parts or performing illegal abortions.
Click to expand...



It sounds like this is the same as organ donation after death and requires prior consent of the pregnant woman after she chosen an abortion.  It doesn't sound like anyone is getting paid for it.  Is it any different than organ donation in an adult?


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no. Selling baby parts is illegal. As is partial birth abortion, which she stated they were doing, and described how they were doing. In detail.
> 
> PS...I will remember that you stated once upon a time that the video was cool. Like the next time you claim that PP would never consider engaging in harvesting body parts or performing illegal abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like this is the same as organ donation after death and requires prior consent of the pregnant woman after she chosen an abortion.  It doesn't sound like anyone is getting paid for it.  Is it any different than organ donation in an adult?
Click to expand...

 You're a liar. It isn't organ donation, and the partial birth abortion being described as the method to extract and kill the babies is ILLEGAL.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> From Wikipedia: Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[47] Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[47]
> 
> She gave one lecture on birth control.  So?
> 
> Hardly "speeches"
> 
> The funny thing about rightwinger attitudes towards Sanger is this.  They try to tie her in to abortion - but Sanger was actually opposed to abortion.  Her cause was solely birth control.  So, that's one obvious lie.
> 
> The second is the distortion of her comments to make the claim that she want's exterminate black people - another lie.  There is nothing in her comments to support that.
> 
> Was she racist?  Her opinions reflect the prevalent attitudes in our country during that era - attitudes in fact, that still pop up today in the generaters of "feral negro" and "welfare queen" topics.
> 
> _*Sanger's writings echoed ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races that were widespread in the contemporary United States. *In one "What Every Girl Should Know" commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were "just a step higher than the chimpanzee" with "little sexual control," as compared to the "normal man and Woman."[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics "... have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted."[93]_​So...why do the rightwingers hate her so much they need to villify her with falsehoods?  She wasn't anti-abortion.  She was no more racist that many of her time, including exhaulted rightwing heros.  What she did was free women - MARRIED women (because she still felt marriage was necessary) from a life of unending childbirth and the physical ailments and poverty that often resulted from that.
> 
> She gave women the same sexual freedom that men have long claimed and my god they hate for it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiki is not a reliable source
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nice dodge.
> 
> Wiki is more neutral and reliable than most - and it gives original sources - like her autobiography.  Or is that unreliable too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've sat and called out every source Irish Ram has put up unreliable and then quote Wiki? LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934
> 
> Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
> 
> April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108
> 
> Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.
> 
> _Woman, Morality, and Birth Control_. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
> 
> We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
> 
> Hitler's remedy for the "perpetually pregnant"  was gas.  Sanger's was control of the wombs of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This shows that in 1922, people already understood Margaret's motives and she was seeking to sugarcoat things in order to get them to go along.    In later years, she toned it down and only talked about helping women because that was what people wanted to hear.    I think she was radical and wished to reduce the population of blacks and religious people.
> 
> No, she didn't want the word to go out that she was a racist and had to take steps to convince people otherwise. *  I think many liberals today love the idea of a cleaner race and many admit to wanting population control*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So was Thomas Jefferson but you guys love him!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But we don't deny that he owned slaves. You people lie about Sanger to make her more palatable. As you lie about everything to make your death cult appealing and less monstrous.
Click to expand...


So...demanding evidence that she called for genocide of blacks, and then calling that claim false because no one can produce said evidence...is "lying about her"?  No, it's not us lying.  It's just your usual duplicitous double standard.  Jefferson didn't just  own slaves - he opposed any mixing of races because of the inferiority of the black race.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no. Selling baby parts is illegal. As is partial birth abortion, which she stated they were doing, and described how they were doing. In detail.
> 
> PS...I will remember that you stated once upon a time that the video was cool. Like the next time you claim that PP would never consider engaging in harvesting body parts or performing illegal abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like this is the same as organ donation after death and requires prior consent of the pregnant woman after she chosen an abortion.  It doesn't sound like anyone is getting paid for it.  Is it any different than organ donation in an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a liar. It isn't organ donation, and the partial birth abortion being described as the method to extract and kill the babies is ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...


Because you say so....


----------



## Coyote

hadit said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
Click to expand...


The fetus isn't a person.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no. Selling baby parts is illegal. As is partial birth abortion, which she stated they were doing, and described how they were doing. In detail.
> 
> PS...I will remember that you stated once upon a time that the video was cool. Like the next time you claim that PP would never consider engaging in harvesting body parts or performing illegal abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like this is the same as organ donation after death and requires prior consent of the pregnant woman after she chosen an abortion.  It doesn't sound like anyone is getting paid for it.  Is it any different than organ donation in an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a liar. It isn't organ donation, and the partial birth abortion being described as the method to extract and kill the babies is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you say so....
Click to expand...

 Liar.


----------



## The Irish Ram

A business that sells a "commodity" will go out of business unless they can supply to meet the demand.  Selling body parts means they need bodies.  The more lucrative the more incentive.  Teachers are taking kids out of school and sending them to the commodity gathering factory while you think your child is in class. 
And we subsidize it.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
Click to expand...

 Liar.

Partial birth abortion is illegal. Not going to speak to that, are you?

Death cultist. Baby killing acolyte.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we should outlaw birth control because Margaret Sanger supported it?  Are you retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> Speak for yourself instead of putting words in other people's posts.   Proof you can't read what is written.
> 
> Stop pretending that Sanger's motives were pure.   They weren't.   She was a bitter woman.
> 
> No one said outlaw anything, except you.
> 
> I must ask again if any liberals here have an opinion on Planned Parenthood committed crimes by selling body parts of aborted fetuses.    Is that okay with you libs that this business does as it pleases with no fear of reprisals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressives are okay with the victimization of pregnant women, the illegal practices that put them at danger, the butchery of babies, and they're fine with the fact that it's all done in dirty, non-regulated facilities by insane clinicians who have no admitting rights to hospitals or any decent credentials, and who are admittedly only in it for the $$.
Click to expand...


It amazes me that you guys think women are so stupid they're being constantly victimized.  Sheesh.  No wonder you hate Sangor for advocating legal birth control.


----------



## The Irish Ram

The fetus has his own DNA.  It is not an extension of the mother or the father.   If not harvested at the parts factory, the fetus will be as much of a person as you are.


----------



## Coyote

The Irish Ram said:


> A business that sells a "commodity" will go out of business unless they can supply to meet the demand.  Selling body parts means they need bodies.  The more lucrative the more incentive.  Teachers are taking kids out of school and sending them to the commodity gathering factory while you think your child is in class.
> And we subsidize it.


What on earth are you going on about?


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Partial birth abortion is illegal. Not going to speak to that, are you?
> 
> Death cultist. Baby killing acolyte.
Click to expand...


Back to name calling are you?

Let's see some more proof of what this heaviily edited video claims.


----------



## amrchaos

koshergrl said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no. Selling baby parts is illegal. As is partial birth abortion, which she stated they were doing, and described how they were doing. In detail.
> 
> PS...I will remember that you stated once upon a time that the video was cool. Like the next time you claim that PP would never consider engaging in harvesting body parts or performing illegal abortions.
Click to expand...


Yes, selling body parts is illegal.  But those laws have clauses in them that makes it possible to obtain body parts legally.  Hence, I ask again, where is the crime?  There is none.

2nd.  When did I make such a claim about that film?  Can you remind me?  Show the post--I might have, but I seriously doubt I did.  

3rd--I know I never claimed that part about harvesting fetal tissues.  Where do you think fetal parts for research come from?  It just does not poof into existence.  Only a fool think you can say a word and things poof into existence.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Nutbags think saying that "each state should decide" is a great way to get what they want. It's a big "fuck you" to the idea of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we should outlaw birth control because Margaret Sanger supported it?  Are you retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> Speak for yourself instead of putting words in other people's posts.   Proof you can't read what is written.
> 
> Stop pretending that Sanger's motives were pure.   They weren't.   She was a bitter woman.
> 
> No one said outlaw anything, except you.
> 
> I must ask again if any liberals here have an opinion on Planned Parenthood committed crimes by selling body parts of aborted fetuses.    Is that okay with you libs that this business does as it pleases with no fear of reprisals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressives are okay with the victimization of pregnant women, the illegal practices that put them at danger, the butchery of babies, and they're fine with the fact that it's all done in dirty, non-regulated facilities by insane clinicians who have no admitting rights to hospitals or any decent credentials, and who are admittedly only in it for the $$.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me that you guys think women are so stupid they're being constantly victimized.  Sheesh.  No wonder you hate Sangor for advocating legal birth control.
Click to expand...

 
When they are pregnant they are vulnerable, and when they are vulnerable, big organizations like PP take advantage of them. They count on them being desperate, abused, often young and afraid. The women who get partial birth abortions are under the control of someone else, without exception. They either hide their pregnancy as long as they can because they know they will be forced to abort and they don't want to, or they have been prevented from aborting early by an abuser, who then changes his mind. These women that PP is allegedly *helping* are simply their victims.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we should outlaw birth control because Margaret Sanger supported it?  Are you retarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot.
> 
> Speak for yourself instead of putting words in other people's posts.   Proof you can't read what is written.
> 
> Stop pretending that Sanger's motives were pure.   They weren't.   She was a bitter woman.
> 
> No one said outlaw anything, except you.
> 
> I must ask again if any liberals here have an opinion on Planned Parenthood committed crimes by selling body parts of aborted fetuses.    Is that okay with you libs that this business does as it pleases with no fear of reprisals?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Progressives are okay with the victimization of pregnant women, the illegal practices that put them at danger, the butchery of babies, and they're fine with the fact that it's all done in dirty, non-regulated facilities by insane clinicians who have no admitting rights to hospitals or any decent credentials, and who are admittedly only in it for the $$.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me that you guys think women are so stupid they're being constantly victimized.  Sheesh.  No wonder you hate Sangor for advocating legal birth control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When they are pregnant they are vulnerable, and when they are vulnerable, big organizations like PP take advantage of them. They count on them being desperate, abused, often young and afraid. The women who get partial birth abortions are under the control of someone else, without exception. They either hide their pregnancy as long as they can because they know they will be forced to abort and they don't want to, or they have been prevented from aborting early by an abuser, who then changes his mind. These women that PP is allegedly *helping* are simply their victims.
Click to expand...


Oh brother.


----------



## amrchaos

Edgetho said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're perfectly fine with it?
> 
> Absent them breaking any laws, you're okay with them dissecting babies and selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard?
> 
> You're down with that?
> 
> Of course you are, you're a scum of the earth dimocrap.
Click to expand...


Just as fine as I am with dissecting any cadaver and 'selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard' (You know, the procedure described is not any different than how doctors deal organ donors!)

In fact, doing so can save many lives.  Or do you think the fetus was still alive when the partitioning began?  Is that it?.


----------



## JGalt

LoneLaugher said:


> Nutbags think saying that "each state should decide" is a great way to get what they want. It's a big "fuck you" to the idea of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.




When in the last 7 years have we been the "United" States of America? Thanks to that Kenyan mongrel dog-eating Communist bastard squatting in the White House, we're now the "Divided States of America".

FBHO with a rusty, AIDS-infected garden weasel.


----------



## Darkwind

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
Click to expand...

Wow, that must be one hell of an acid flashback....

Perpetual pregnancy and slavery....all rolled into one fantasy...


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Partial birth abortion is illegal. Not going to speak to that, are you?
> 
> Death cultist. Baby killing acolyte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to name calling are you?
> 
> Let's see some more proof of what this heaviily edited video claims.
Click to expand...

 I find nothing more disgusting than women who support the victimization of vulnerable women and infants, so get used to it. You're scum.


----------



## koshergrl

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that must be one hell of an acid flashback....
> 
> Perpetual pregnancy and slavery....all rolled into one fantasy...
Click to expand...

 
Thank goodness baby killing mills came along to save us!


----------



## LoneLaugher

JGalt said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nutbags think saying that "each state should decide" is a great way to get what they want. It's a big "fuck you" to the idea of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When in the last 7 years have we been the "United" States of America? Thanks to that Kenyan mongrel dog-eating Communist bastard squatting in the White House, we're now the "Divided States of America".
> 
> FBHO with a rusty, AIDS-infected garden weasel.
Click to expand...


You are so sweet.


----------



## amrchaos

The Irish Ram said:


> Trump said some of the illegals coming across our border are bad people, and the left went where there is no context to decree that, TRUMP HATES MEXICANS.
> 
> Yet,  context after context has been offered from the mouth of Sanger and they want more context, plus more context to *prove* she was a  promoter of the superior race, and how to insure it.
> 
> It's like needing every word out of Hitler's mouth before conceding that he was a  promoter of the superior race, and how to insure it.
> 
> Hitler was responsible for the "Jewish" project.  Sanger was responsible for the "Negro" project.



Trump said "the illegals are rapist. They are murderers. They are drug smugglers. and Some, I assume, are good people"

That has a drastic different meaning from what you said.  Go back and check his announcement speech again.. You got it wrong


----------



## JGalt

LoneLaugher said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nutbags think saying that "each state should decide" is a great way to get what they want. It's a big "fuck you" to the idea of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When in the last 7 years have we been the "United" States of America? Thanks to that Kenyan mongrel dog-eating Communist bastard squatting in the White House, we're now the "Divided States of America".
> 
> FBHO with a rusty, AIDS-infected garden weasel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so sweet.
Click to expand...


Well thanks for the compliment, but I'm already spoken for.


----------



## deltex1

Clementine said:


> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts


I heard Obama has an order in for brain matter and a bigger pair of balls.


----------



## amrchaos

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're perfectly fine with it?
> 
> Absent them breaking any laws, you're okay with them dissecting babies and selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard?
> 
> You're down with that?
> 
> Of course you are, you're a scum of the earth dimocrap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean salvaging the donated tissue for scientific research, yeah sure, better than burning it for electricity don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's illegal....not that hard to grasp
Click to expand...


Not if certain guidelines and procedures are followed--normally outlined by the  very laws your favorite politicians claimed makes it illegal.

Think about it--If what you said was true, then the video I showed you is evidence of a conspiracy.  Yet the good doctor has not faced any charges and is still in her position.

Strange, is it not?


----------



## LoneLaugher

JGalt said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nutbags think saying that "each state should decide" is a great way to get what they want. It's a big "fuck you" to the idea of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When in the last 7 years have we been the "United" States of America? Thanks to that Kenyan mongrel dog-eating Communist bastard squatting in the White House, we're now the "Divided States of America".
> 
> FBHO with a rusty, AIDS-infected garden weasel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so sweet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well thanks for the compliment, but I'm already spoken for.
Click to expand...


Doubt it.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

amrchaos said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're perfectly fine with it?
> 
> Absent them breaking any laws, you're okay with them dissecting babies and selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard?
> 
> You're down with that?
> 
> Of course you are, you're a scum of the earth dimocrap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean salvaging the donated tissue for scientific research, yeah sure, better than burning it for electricity don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's illegal....not that hard to grasp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if certain guidelines and procedures are followed--normally outlined by the  very laws your favorite politicians claimed makes it illegal.
> 
> Think about it--If what you said was true, then the video I showed you is evidence of a conspiracy.  Yet the good doctor has not faced any charges and is still in her position.
> 
> Strange, is it not?
Click to expand...


Gov Jindal is launching an investigation and has asked the FBI for their assistance, charges may very well be pending.


----------



## EriktheRed

The Irish Ram said:


> A business that sells a "commodity" will go out of business unless they can supply to meet the demand.  Selling body parts means they need bodies.  The more lucrative the more incentive.  Teachers are taking kids out of school and sending them to the commodity gathering factory while you think your child is in class.
> And we subsidize it.




What is this "business" you speak of?


----------



## Clementine

deltex1 said:


> I heard Obama has an order in for brain matter and a bigger pair of balls.



LOL

I'm sure they'll give him a good deal considering his administration has been willing to fund them and turn a blind eye to their suspicious practices.


----------



## Clementine

EriktheRed said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> A business that sells a "commodity" will go out of business unless they can supply to meet the demand.  Selling body parts means they need bodies.  The more lucrative the more incentive.  Teachers are taking kids out of school and sending them to the commodity gathering factory while you think your child is in class.
> And we subsidize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this "business" you speak of?
Click to expand...


PP's profits are in the millions each year.   They are a business and they make money.    Yet, the Dems like to give them more money to make sure they won't go out of business.


----------



## BullKurtz

These are stalinists....they make nazis look like girl scouts.   This is who's running the country these days....if the ballot box doesn't remove them we have to remove them forcibly.


----------



## EriktheRed

Clementine said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> A business that sells a "commodity" will go out of business unless they can supply to meet the demand.  Selling body parts means they need bodies.  The more lucrative the more incentive.  Teachers are taking kids out of school and sending them to the commodity gathering factory while you think your child is in class.
> And we subsidize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this "business" you speak of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PP's profits are in the millions each year.   They are a business and they make money.    Yet, the Dems like to give them more money to make sure they won't go out of business.
Click to expand...


Really? Who besides RW nutbags such as yourself calls them a "business"?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

EriktheRed said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> A business that sells a "commodity" will go out of business unless they can supply to meet the demand.  Selling body parts means they need bodies.  The more lucrative the more incentive.  Teachers are taking kids out of school and sending them to the commodity gathering factory while you think your child is in class.
> And we subsidize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this "business" you speak of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PP's profits are in the millions each year.   They are a business and they make money.    Yet, the Dems like to give them more money to make sure they won't go out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Who besides RW nutbags such as yourself calls them a "business"?
Click to expand...


I prefer House of Horrors


----------



## koshergrl

EriktheRed said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> A business that sells a "commodity" will go out of business unless they can supply to meet the demand.  Selling body parts means they need bodies.  The more lucrative the more incentive.  Teachers are taking kids out of school and sending them to the commodity gathering factory while you think your child is in class.
> And we subsidize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this "business" you speak of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PP's profits are in the millions each year.   They are a business and they make money.    Yet, the Dems like to give them more money to make sure they won't go out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Who besides RW nutbags such as yourself calls them a "business"?
Click to expand...

 
"Planned Parenthood, whose top doctor was caught on video discussing the sale of body parts from aborted babies, has received more than $27 million from taxpayers this year."

Washington Free Beacon

Sounds like quite a lucrative business to me.


----------



## koshergrl

I bet they have a business plan, too. Aside from harvesting baby parts out of vulnerable, drugged women, that is.


----------



## amrchaos

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no. Selling baby parts is illegal. As is partial birth abortion, which she stated they were doing, and described how they were doing. In detail.
> 
> PS...I will remember that you stated once upon a time that the video was cool. Like the next time you claim that PP would never consider engaging in harvesting body parts or performing illegal abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like this is the same as organ donation after death and requires prior consent of the pregnant woman after she chosen an abortion.  It doesn't sound like anyone is getting paid for it.  Is it any different than organ donation in an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a liar. It isn't organ donation, and the partial birth abortion being described as the method to extract and kill the babies is ILLEGAL.
Click to expand...


The mother legal consent is obtained when she files paperwork to have the abortion. It is possible for a mother wanting to keep the fetus, but I think those situations are extremely rare.

Also, no where is it indicated when the fetus was terminated.  After termination, repositioning to extract the fetus is common.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> I bet they have a business plan, too. Aside from harvesting baby parts out of vulnerable, drugged women, that is.



Spreadsheets, marketing, budgets, all that business type stuff


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're perfectly fine with it?
> 
> Absent them breaking any laws, you're okay with them dissecting babies and selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard?
> 
> You're down with that?
> 
> Of course you are, you're a scum of the earth dimocrap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean salvaging the donated tissue for scientific research, yeah sure, better than burning it for electricity don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's illegal....not that hard to grasp
Click to expand...


No it's not.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

amrchaos said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no. Selling baby parts is illegal. As is partial birth abortion, which she stated they were doing, and described how they were doing. In detail.
> 
> PS...I will remember that you stated once upon a time that the video was cool. Like the next time you claim that PP would never consider engaging in harvesting body parts or performing illegal abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like this is the same as organ donation after death and requires prior consent of the pregnant woman after she chosen an abortion.  It doesn't sound like anyone is getting paid for it.  Is it any different than organ donation in an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a liar. It isn't organ donation, and the partial birth abortion being described as the method to extract and kill the babies is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mother legal consent is obtained when she files paperwork to have the abortion. It is possible for a mother wanting to keep the fetus, but I think those situations are extremely rare.
> 
> Also, no where is it indicated when the fetus was terminated.  After termination, repositioning to extract the fetus is common.
Click to expand...


You cannot sell human body parts, it's violation of federal law


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlindBoo said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're perfectly fine with it?
> 
> Absent them breaking any laws, you're okay with them dissecting babies and selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard?
> 
> You're down with that?
> 
> Of course you are, you're a scum of the earth dimocrap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean salvaging the donated tissue for scientific research, yeah sure, better than burning it for electricity don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's illegal....not that hard to grasp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
Click to expand...


It is most certainly illegal, federal law, bub


----------



## koshergrl

amrchaos said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no. Selling baby parts is illegal. As is partial birth abortion, which she stated they were doing, and described how they were doing. In detail.
> 
> PS...I will remember that you stated once upon a time that the video was cool. Like the next time you claim that PP would never consider engaging in harvesting body parts or performing illegal abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like this is the same as organ donation after death and requires prior consent of the pregnant woman after she chosen an abortion.  It doesn't sound like anyone is getting paid for it.  Is it any different than organ donation in an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a liar. It isn't organ donation, and the partial birth abortion being described as the method to extract and kill the babies is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mother legal consent is obtained when she files paperwork to have the abortion. It is possible for a mother wanting to keep the fetus, but I think those situations are extremely rare.
> 
> Also, no where is it indicated when the fetus was terminated.  After termination, repositioning to extract the fetus is common.
Click to expand...

 
Partial birth abortions are illegal. What this doctor is describing is illegal, black market harvesting of dead babies for profit.


----------



## BlindBoo

Clementine said:


> Do any liberals have an opinion on Planned Parenthood illegally selling body parts?    Not clumps of cells, but human body parts from the aborted fetuses?
> 
> I know you guys go all out to defend that Sanger bitch, but none of you are upset with today's PP committing a crime?



My opinion is that they are not selling anything illegally.


----------



## amrchaos

SassyIrishLass said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're perfectly fine with it?
> 
> Absent them breaking any laws, you're okay with them dissecting babies and selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard?
> 
> You're down with that?
> 
> Of course you are, you're a scum of the earth dimocrap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean salvaging the donated tissue for scientific research, yeah sure, better than burning it for electricity don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's illegal....not that hard to grasp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if certain guidelines and procedures are followed--normally outlined by the  very laws your favorite politicians claimed makes it illegal.
> 
> Think about it--If what you said was true, then the video I showed you is evidence of a conspiracy.  Yet the good doctor has not faced any charges and is still in her position.
> 
> Strange, is it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gov Jindal is launching an investigation and has asked the FBI for their assistance, charges may very well be pending.
Click to expand...


The story broke in 2000!


----------



## The Irish Ram

.



> It amazes me that you guys think women are so stupid they're being constantly victimized.  Sheesh


.

Pick a lane.  Before, they were the  perpetually pregnant victims that needed help. Now they aren't victims.
So you agree with Sanger that we need a race of thoroughbreds, by weeding out the poor, blacks that pass on sickle cell anemia, the handicapped, those who selfishly want a 3rd. child, an other "unfits"....

You do know that a woman can have a full term baby, NOT FETUS, baby's neck slit while in the process of giving birth, if she doesn't like it's hair color, right?  A viable baby that is partially  out of the woman's body, and is breathing and alive on it own.  Slit a puppy's neck and watch the outrage.  Killing children is ok though, especially if you can sell it's parts.

And if you want to make the argument that PP is no longer a symbol of racism against the blacks,  then I need to remind you that the confederate flag isn't either.  But that didn't stop you....


----------



## SassyIrishLass

amrchaos said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're perfectly fine with it?
> 
> Absent them breaking any laws, you're okay with them dissecting babies and selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard?
> 
> You're down with that?
> 
> Of course you are, you're a scum of the earth dimocrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean salvaging the donated tissue for scientific research, yeah sure, better than burning it for electricity don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's illegal....not that hard to grasp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if certain guidelines and procedures are followed--normally outlined by the  very laws your favorite politicians claimed makes it illegal.
> 
> Think about it--If what you said was true, then the video I showed you is evidence of a conspiracy.  Yet the good doctor has not faced any charges and is still in her position.
> 
> Strange, is it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gov Jindal is launching an investigation and has asked the FBI for their assistance, charges may very well be pending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story broke in 2000!
Click to expand...


It did not, it's all over sites today, the video was posted today. Nice try though


----------



## hadit

Coyote said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
Click to expand...

African slaves were once considered less human than their white counterparts.  Did it make them less human?


----------



## BlindBoo

hadit said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> African slaves were once considered less human than their white counterparts.  Did it make them less human?
Click to expand...


In the pre-civil war South yes it did legally.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

The law seems clear enough....

(a) *Purchase of tissue*
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
(b) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation*
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—
(1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
(2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
(3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
(c) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes*
It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.

42 U.S. Code 289g 2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue US Law LII Legal Information Institute


----------



## amrchaos

koshergrl said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no. Selling baby parts is illegal. As is partial birth abortion, which she stated they were doing, and described how they were doing. In detail.
> 
> PS...I will remember that you stated once upon a time that the video was cool. Like the next time you claim that PP would never consider engaging in harvesting body parts or performing illegal abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like this is the same as organ donation after death and requires prior consent of the pregnant woman after she chosen an abortion.  It doesn't sound like anyone is getting paid for it.  Is it any different than organ donation in an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a liar. It isn't organ donation, and the partial birth abortion being described as the method to extract and kill the babies is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mother legal consent is obtained when she files paperwork to have the abortion. It is possible for a mother wanting to keep the fetus, but I think those situations are extremely rare.
> 
> Also, no where is it indicated when the fetus was terminated.  After termination, repositioning to extract the fetus is common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Partial birth abortions are illegal. What this doctor is describing is illegal, black market harvesting of dead babies for profit.
Click to expand...


When is the fetus terminated, KG?  At no point does the doctor say, so don't assume it is one procedure when it very well could be another.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Ted Cruz announces he is sickened by this and wants Congress and the FBI to investigate. The nooses tightens


----------



## amrchaos

SassyIrishLass said:


> The law seems clear enough....
> 
> (a) *Purchase of tissue*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
> (b) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—
> (1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
> (2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
> (3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
> (c) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes*
> It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
> (1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
> (2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
> 
> 42 U.S. Code 289g 2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue US Law LII Legal Information Institute




................and which section was violated?


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> The law seems clear enough....
> 
> (a) *Purchase of tissue*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
> (b) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—
> (1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
> (2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
> (3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
> (c) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes*
> It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
> (1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
> (2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
> 
> 42 U.S. Code 289g 2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue US Law LII Legal Information Institute



Have a lawyer explain it to you.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

amrchaos said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law seems clear enough....
> 
> (a) *Purchase of tissue*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
> (b) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—
> (1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
> (2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
> (3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
> (c) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes*
> It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
> (1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
> (2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
> 
> 42 U.S. Code 289g 2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................and which section was violated?
Click to expand...


Look fool, the moment they SOLD, ACCEPTED PAYMENT for the human body parts they violated the law. It's FREAKING ILLEGAL, this is not rocket science


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean salvaging the donated tissue for scientific research, yeah sure, better than burning it for electricity don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal....not that hard to grasp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if certain guidelines and procedures are followed--normally outlined by the  very laws your favorite politicians claimed makes it illegal.
> 
> Think about it--If what you said was true, then the video I showed you is evidence of a conspiracy.  Yet the good doctor has not faced any charges and is still in her position.
> 
> Strange, is it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gov Jindal is launching an investigation and has asked the FBI for their assistance, charges may very well be pending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story broke in 2000!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did not, it's all over sites today, the video was posted today. Nice try though
Click to expand...

 Looks like yet another abortion horror story. Stand by for clinic closures and arrests. Again.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlindBoo said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law seems clear enough....
> 
> (a) *Purchase of tissue*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
> (b) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—
> (1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
> (2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
> (3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
> (c) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes*
> It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
> (1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
> (2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
> 
> 42 U.S. Code 289g 2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have a lawyer explain it to you.
Click to expand...


My husband is an attorney, he says if this is true PP is so fugged


----------



## amrchaos

You guys skip over *section c* so readily, I wonder why?


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law seems clear enough....
> 
> (a) *Purchase of tissue*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
> (b) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—
> (1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
> (2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
> (3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
> (c) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes*
> It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
> (1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
> (2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
> 
> 42 U.S. Code 289g 2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have a lawyer explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My husband is an attorney, he says if this is true PP is so fugged
Click to expand...

 
It's true. They're already calling for a criminal investigation and Jindal is on it.


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> Ted Cruz announces he is sickened by this and wants Congress and the FBI to investigate. The nooses tightens



They're just trying to O'Keefe PP again is all.  Any investigation needs to start with the unedited video so we can see what is really going on.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

amrchaos said:


> You guys skip over *section c* so readily, I wonder why?



You're an idiot, do you think Senators and Governors are getting involved if this wasn't serious? Good grief


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlindBoo said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Cruz announces he is sickened by this and wants Congress and the FBI to investigate. The nooses tightens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're just trying to O'Keefe PP again is all.  Any investigation needs to start with the unedited video so we can see what is really going on.
Click to expand...


PP has a habit of talking too much, idiot baby murderers


----------



## koshergrl

"What price range would you...?”
“You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100, depending on the facility and what’s involved,” says Nucatola. “It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there that’s going to be doing everything...is there shipping involved? Is someone going to be there to pick it up?”

Undercover video shows Planned Parenthood official discussing fetal organs used for research - The Washington Post


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law seems clear enough....
> 
> (a) *Purchase of tissue*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
> (b) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—
> (1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
> (2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
> (3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
> (c) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes*
> It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
> (1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
> (2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
> 
> 42 U.S. Code 289g 2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have a lawyer explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My husband is an attorney, he says if this is true PP is so fugged
Click to expand...


If is the most powerful word in the universe.


----------



## bodecea

Edgetho said:


> dimocraps are lying scum.....
> 
> Sanger was a stone-cold racist.
> Period


Nice photoshop.   Very convincing.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> "What price range would you...?”
> “You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100, depending on the facility and what’s involved,” says Nucatola. “It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there that’s going to be doing everything...is there shipping involved? Is someone going to be there to pick it up?”
> 
> Undercover video shows Planned Parenthood official discussing fetal organs used for research - The Washington Post



Dang, even WAPO is on it. PP is fucked


----------



## The Irish Ram

Thing is, Go to a surgeon with a problem, and he'll try to convince you that you need surgery.  Go to a dealer to get your wrecked car fixed and they'll tell you that you need a new car.  Go to planned parenthood and they'll tell you you need an abortion.

Go to  school and the nurse will give you a pregnancy test, and 5 minutes after you find out you are pregnant, you're on your way to the abortion clinic.  If it is lucrative to sell what that confused child is carrying, do you think she's going to get a plan for parenthood, or a gown and stirrups? 

And how many of those herded children will grow up to regret the school's/gov./pp decision?  How about removing the parents of the child from the decision?  If they had done something like that to one of my girls without my permission, I can't eventell you what my response would have been.


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys skip over *section c* so readily, I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot, do you think Senators and Governors are getting involved if this wasn't serious? Good grief
Click to expand...


Like they wouldn't knowingly use such a truthiness moment to further their careers?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlindBoo said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys skip over *section c* so readily, I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot, do you think Senators and Governors are getting involved if this wasn't serious? Good grief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like they wouldn't knowingly use such a truthiness moment to further their careers?
Click to expand...


You've become annoying in defense of the baby killing body snatchers


----------



## bodecea

Clementine said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> America Needs a Code for Babies,” 27 Mar 1934
> 
> Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
> 
> April 1932 Birth Control Review, pg. 108
> 
> Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.
> 
> _Woman, Morality, and Birth Control_. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
> 
> We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
> 
> Hitler's remedy for the "perpetually pregnant"  was gas.  Sanger's was control of the wombs of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shows that in 1922, people already understood Margaret's motives and she was seeking to sugarcoat things in order to get them to go along.    In later years, she toned it down and only talked about helping women because that was what people wanted to hear.    I think she was radical and wished to reduce the population of blacks and religious people.
> 
> No, she didn't want the word to go out that she was a racist and had to take steps to convince people otherwise.   I think many liberals today love the idea of a cleaner race and many admit to wanting population control.
Click to expand...

You think...you think...you think......and yet either no evidence or made up evidence.


----------



## EriktheRed

koshergrl said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> A business that sells a "commodity" will go out of business unless they can supply to meet the demand.  Selling body parts means they need bodies.  The more lucrative the more incentive.  Teachers are taking kids out of school and sending them to the commodity gathering factory while you think your child is in class.
> And we subsidize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this "business" you speak of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PP's profits are in the millions each year.   They are a business and they make money.    Yet, the Dems like to give them more money to make sure they won't go out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Who besides RW nutbags such as yourself calls them a "business"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Planned Parenthood, whose top doctor was caught on video discussing the sale of body parts from aborted babies, has received more than $27 million from taxpayers this year."
> 
> Washington Free Beacon
> 
> Sounds like quite a lucrative business to me.
Click to expand...



IOW, it's just a wingnut thing. 

(Which I already knew, but it's good to get confirmation)


----------



## koshergrl

" The costs to which Ferraro alludes would not apply in abortions, since that is a paid-for procedure by the mother. Transportation costs would almost certainly not apply on a body-part basis either, especially with the wide disparities of price noted by PP’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola in the video.
"The context of the video was clearly not reimbursement for transportation of random tissue. Nucatola talks extensively about the demand for specific body parts in relation to _price_. “A lot of people want liver,” Nucatola states, and then explains how they train their staff to perform these abortions so that PP clinics can harvest organs to _meet specific demand, _and then make the sale. At one point, Nucatola even talks about body parts being on a “menu.”

Planned Parenthood responds Nucatola s just talking about reimbursements Update Jindal orders LA probe halt to PP license Update Unedited 3-hour video added Hot Air


----------



## koshergrl

EriktheRed said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> A business that sells a "commodity" will go out of business unless they can supply to meet the demand.  Selling body parts means they need bodies.  The more lucrative the more incentive.  Teachers are taking kids out of school and sending them to the commodity gathering factory while you think your child is in class.
> And we subsidize it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is this "business" you speak of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PP's profits are in the millions each year.   They are a business and they make money.    Yet, the Dems like to give them more money to make sure they won't go out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Who besides RW nutbags such as yourself calls them a "business"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Planned Parenthood, whose top doctor was caught on video discussing the sale of body parts from aborted babies, has received more than $27 million from taxpayers this year."
> 
> Washington Free Beacon
> 
> Sounds like quite a lucrative business to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, it's just a wingnut thing.
> 
> (Which I already knew, but it's good to get confirmation)
Click to expand...

 
Yes, a left wingnut, baby killing for profit thing. I'm glad to accommodate you.


----------



## koshergrl

"The reporter posing as a buyer asks Nucatola why he can’t just coordinate the sales with the national office. “We have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,” and that their lawyers consider it “too touchy” for the national office. “But I will tell you that behind these closed doors,” Nucatola explains further, “these conversations are happening with the affiliates.”

Nice.


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys skip over *section c* so readily, I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot, do you think Senators and Governors are getting involved if this wasn't serious? Good grief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like they wouldn't knowingly use such a truthiness moment to further their careers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've become annoying in defense of the baby killing body snatchers
Click to expand...


You're still wrapped up in truthiness.  I know, deep down in your gut, it feel like the truth doesn't it?


----------



## koshergrl

"This is about illegal trafficking in aborted babies, and what Nucatola describes is an organized strategy to cover it up. Congress should demand an immediate investigation into this practice."

"They tell mothers that it’s just a “clump of cells” being removed, but then sell them as human organs to the highest bidders. Talk about _cognitive dissonance_."

Planned Parenthood responds Nucatola s just talking about reimbursements Update Jindal orders LA probe halt to PP license Update Unedited 3-hour video added Hot Air


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlindBoo said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys skip over *section c* so readily, I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot, do you think Senators and Governors are getting involved if this wasn't serious? Good grief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like they wouldn't knowingly use such a truthiness moment to further their careers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've become annoying in defense of the baby killing body snatchers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still wrapped up in truthiness.  I know, deep down in your gut, it feel like the truth doesn't it?
Click to expand...


You're pretty much an annoying idiot, annoying idiots annoy me


----------



## EriktheRed

koshergrl said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is this "business" you speak of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PP's profits are in the millions each year.   They are a business and they make money.    Yet, the Dems like to give them more money to make sure they won't go out of business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Who besides RW nutbags such as yourself calls them a "business"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Planned Parenthood, whose top doctor was caught on video discussing the sale of body parts from aborted babies, has received more than $27 million from taxpayers this year."
> 
> Washington Free Beacon
> 
> Sounds like quite a lucrative business to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, it's just a wingnut thing.
> 
> (Which I already knew, but it's good to get confirmation)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, a left wingnut, baby killing for profit thing. I'm glad to accommodate you.
Click to expand...



Except it's really not.


----------



## Asclepias

The Irish Ram said:


> Thing is, Go to a surgeon with a problem, and he'll try to convince you that you need surgery.  Go to a dealer to get your wrecked car fixed and they'll tell you that you need a new car.  Go to planned parenthood and they'll tell you you need an abortion.
> 
> Go to  school and the nurse will give you a pregnancy test, and 5 minutes after you find out you are pregnant, you're on your way to the abortion clinic.  If it is lucrative to sell what that confused child is carrying, do you think she's going to get a plan for parenthood, or a gown and stirrups?
> 
> And how many of those herded children will grow up to regret the school's/gov./pp decision?  How about removing the parents of the child from the decision?  If they had done something like that to one of my girls without my permission, I can't eventell you what my response would have been.


You sound idiotic. A school nurse cant even suggest a child go to get an abortion.


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys skip over *section c* so readily, I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot, do you think Senators and Governors are getting involved if this wasn't serious? Good grief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like they wouldn't knowingly use such a truthiness moment to further their careers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've become annoying in defense of the baby killing body snatchers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still wrapped up in truthiness.  I know, deep down in your gut, it feel like the truth doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're pretty much an annoying idiot, annoying idiots annoy me
Click to expand...


----------



## paperview

so what happened when a similar undercover video found a similar thing in 2000.

I can find Congress addressing it, but not much else.

*20/20 Exposes Trafficking In Fetal Body Parts - National ...*
www.nrlc.org/archive/.../*2000*/.../*2020*....
National Right to Life Committee
The smoldering controversy over the harvesting of _fetal body parts_ burst into flames ... _20/20_ cast new light on the shadowy world of _abortion_ clinics, _body part_ ... in its February 26, _2000_, edition, quoted pro-_abortion_ militant Congressman He

*Today in Congress - The Washington Post*
www.washingtonpost.com/.../58ecec25-2178-4feb-96...
The Washington Post
Mar 9, 2000 - 2123 RHOB. "_Fetal Tissue: Is It Being Bought and Sold in Violation of Federal Law_?" 2322 RHOB. Commerce--10 a.m. Telecommunications, .


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Er, no. Selling baby parts is illegal. As is partial birth abortion, which she stated they were doing, and described how they were doing. In detail.
> 
> PS...I will remember that you stated once upon a time that the video was cool. Like the next time you claim that PP would never consider engaging in harvesting body parts or performing illegal abortions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like this is the same as organ donation after death and requires prior consent of the pregnant woman after she chosen an abortion.  It doesn't sound like anyone is getting paid for it.  Is it any different than organ donation in an adult?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a liar. It isn't organ donation, and the partial birth abortion being described as the method to extract and kill the babies is ILLEGAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you say so....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
Click to expand...

So you're a liar.  Ok, no surprise there.


----------



## EriktheRed

It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.

Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?


----------



## Asclepias

EriktheRed said:


> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?


That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.


----------



## koshergrl

EriktheRed said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP's profits are in the millions each year.   They are a business and they make money.    Yet, the Dems like to give them more money to make sure they won't go out of business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Who besides RW nutbags such as yourself calls them a "business"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Planned Parenthood, whose top doctor was caught on video discussing the sale of body parts from aborted babies, has received more than $27 million from taxpayers this year."
> 
> Washington Free Beacon
> 
> Sounds like quite a lucrative business to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, it's just a wingnut thing.
> 
> (Which I already knew, but it's good to get confirmation)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, a left wingnut, baby killing for profit thing. I'm glad to accommodate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except it's really not.
Click to expand...

 $27 million in income from the feds says otherwise.

On top of the nice juicy $$$ they get from the poor victimized women themselves.


----------



## paperview

Hmmm...
*No Federal Law Broken In Sale of Fetal Body Parts, US ...*
www.cnsnews.com/.../no-federal-law-broken-sale...
Cybercast News Service
Jul 7, 2008 - _Miles Jones, the owner of Opening Lines, a West Frankfort_, _Ill_., company involved in the sale of fetal body parts to researchers, had been placed ...


*Witness: no knowledge of fetal tissue sales - UPI.com*
Witness no knowledge of fetal tissue sales - UPI.com
Mar 10, 2000 - 

<snip>
*"The National Institutes of Health has set $100 as that allowable price, a flat fee per transaction*. The committee's GOP majority said there appeared to be no federal enforcement of the law barring profiteering. Republicans who spoke during the hearing said, however, they were not attempting to ban research using fetal tissue, a battle that had been fought in previous years. 

Committee Democrats produced an affidavit Alberty had given on Jan. 20 for a breach-of-contract suit brought by his former employer that contradicted many of the statements he made on the TV program. Alberty told the committee the statements he gave in the affidavit were the correct version of his experience while working for Anatomic Gift in an unidentified city in Kansas. In the affidavit, Alberty said that contrary to some of his testimony on the show, he had no personal knowledge that the fetal tissue he collected was being sold for profit, knew of no instances in which a physician altered an abortion procedure for the sole purpose of obtaining fetal tissue and knew of only one instance in which he believed a fetus being dissected for tissue had reached viability.

* Alberty also said in the affidavit that he still believed a woman should have the right to an abortion and in donation of fetal tissue for medical research."
*
So it seems there is fee limit in what is charged, and the problem is if there is a profit involved,


----------



## EriktheRed

Asclepias said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.
Click to expand...



Kinda like that "soldiers found WMDs in Iraq" story that still pops up every now and then.


----------



## EriktheRed

koshergrl said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Who besides RW nutbags such as yourself calls them a "business"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Planned Parenthood, whose top doctor was caught on video discussing the sale of body parts from aborted babies, has received more than $27 million from taxpayers this year."
> 
> Washington Free Beacon
> 
> Sounds like quite a lucrative business to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IOW, it's just a wingnut thing.
> 
> (Which I already knew, but it's good to get confirmation)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, a left wingnut, baby killing for profit thing. I'm glad to accommodate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except it's really not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> $27 million in income from the feds says otherwise.
> 
> On top of the nice juicy $$$ they get from the poor victimized women themselves.
Click to expand...


Not the same as a for-profit enterprise...something I'm pretty sure you know.


----------



## koshergrl

EriktheRed said:


> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?


 Three hour video. Not an old story.


EriktheRed said:


> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?


 Liar. It has a lead in with a variety of news releases about the topic.

Do you get money from the industry? Are you an abortion fluffer or something?

PS..."Always as many livers as possible". That's nice.


----------



## paperview

Asclepias said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.
Click to expand...

No, this is a new story, but it appears a similar thing happened in 2000.

Nothing came of it.  Congress even investigated.


----------



## koshergrl

$30-$100 per specimen, yes.


----------



## amrchaos

SassyIrishLass said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law seems clear enough....
> 
> (a) *Purchase of tissue*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
> (b) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—
> (1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
> (2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
> (3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
> (c) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes*
> It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
> (1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
> (2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
> 
> 42 U.S. Code 289g 2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ................and which section was violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look fool, the moment they SOLD, ACCEPTED PAYMENT for the human body parts they violated the law. It's FREAKING ILLEGAL, this is not rocket science
Click to expand...


Go back to a) and recognize it says
"if the transfer affects interstate commerce."

In other words, if the tissue does not leave the state, no problem!

So I ask again, which section was violated


----------



## koshergrl

It's funny, they don't mind using the ultrasound for this procedure. Suddenly it doesn't matter if the woman feels *violated* if they're trying to protect a liver's re-sale value.


----------



## amrchaos

SassyIrishLass said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys skip over *section c* so readily, I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot, do you think Senators and Governors are getting involved if this wasn't serious? Good grief
Click to expand...


For politics--yes!
You are a fool to think they wouldn't.  Especially for anyone running for president in the GOP field.  They desperately need to get away from the immigration issue.


----------



## koshergrl

Chicky is going to federal prison. "Federal laws are up for interpretation....If I say on day one 'I do not intend to do this' what follows after doesn't matter".


----------



## EriktheRed

koshergrl said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> Three hour video. Not an old story.
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. It has a lead in with a variety of news releases about the topic.
> 
> Do you get money from the industry? Are you an abortion fluffer or something?
> 
> PS..."Always as many livers as possible". That's nice.
Click to expand...


So what's happened recently to renew interest in this?


----------



## Asclepias

paperview said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this is a new story, but it appears a similar thing happened in 2000.
> 
> Nothing came of it.  Congress even investigated.
Click to expand...


Why are none of the major news outlets running with this?  The only thing I see is a statement up on PP's website dated today explaining the procedures.

Statement from Planned Parenthood on New Undercover Video Planned Parenthood


----------



## koshergrl

"I knew which of the cases were likely to yield...and that's what I do..." she's talking about performing partial birth abortions in order to harvest.


----------



## koshergrl

EriktheRed said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> Three hour video. Not an old story.
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. It has a lead in with a variety of news releases about the topic.
> 
> Do you get money from the industry? Are you an abortion fluffer or something?
> 
> PS..."Always as many livers as possible". That's nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's happened recently to renew interest in this?
Click to expand...

 Give up, baby killer.


----------



## EriktheRed

paperview said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this is a new story, but it appears a similar thing happened in 2000.
> 
> Nothing came of it.  Congress even investigated.
Click to expand...



Ok, but what actually makes this story *new*?


----------



## amrchaos

Asclepias said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thing is, Go to a surgeon with a problem, and he'll try to convince you that you need surgery.  Go to a dealer to get your wrecked car fixed and they'll tell you that you need a new car.  Go to planned parenthood and they'll tell you you need an abortion.
> 
> Go to  school and the nurse will give you a pregnancy test, and 5 minutes after you find out you are pregnant, you're on your way to the abortion clinic.  If it is lucrative to sell what that confused child is carrying, do you think she's going to get a plan for parenthood, or a gown and stirrups?
> 
> And how many of those herded children will grow up to regret the school's/gov./pp decision?  How about removing the parents of the child from the decision?  If they had done something like that to one of my girls without my permission, I can't eventell you what my response would have been.
> 
> 
> 
> You sound idiotic. A school nurse cant even suggest a child go to get an abortion.
Click to expand...


The will have to notify the parents


----------



## g5000

EriktheRed said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this is a new story, but it appears a similar thing happened in 2000.
> 
> Nothing came of it.  Congress even investigated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what actually makes this story *new*?
Click to expand...


This is not a story from 2000.  There is a news clip at the beginning from 2000 which provides some context.

The Planned Parenthood video, though, is recent.  Very recent. 

Did you people even watch it?


----------



## EriktheRed

koshergrl said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> Three hour video. Not an old story.
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. It has a lead in with a variety of news releases about the topic.
> 
> Do you get money from the industry? Are you an abortion fluffer or something?
> 
> PS..."Always as many livers as possible". That's nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's happened recently to renew interest in this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give up, baby killer.
Click to expand...



I could, but I think I'll ask again: why is this suddenly getting such renewed attention?

Got a pretty good idea your answer is gonna be something like, "Give up, baby killer".


----------



## koshergrl

EriktheRed said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this is a new story, but it appears a similar thing happened in 2000.
> 
> Nothing came of it.  Congress even investigated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what actually makes this story *new*?
Click to expand...

 
 It's not from 2000. And who says it has to be new? Is there a statute of limitations on selling body parts?

The tape is the result of a 30-month investigation. Get over it.


----------



## paperview

Asclepias said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this is a new story, but it appears a similar thing happened in 2000.
> 
> Nothing came of it.  Congress even investigated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are none of the major news outlets running with this?  The only thing I see is a statement up on PP's website dated today explaining the procedures.
> 
> Statement from Planned Parenthood on New Undercover Video Planned Parenthood
Click to expand...

Thanks:

“*In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. 

At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards.

 There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.*



“A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case.”

###

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s leading provider and advocate of high-quality, affordable health care for women, men, and young people, as well as the nation’s largest provider of sex education. With approximately 700 health centers across the country, Planned Parenthood organizations serve all patients with care and compassion, with respect and without judgment. Through health centers, programs in schools and communities, and online resources, Planned Parenthood is a trusted source of reliable health information that allows people to make informed health decisions. We do all this because we care passionately about helping people lead healthier lives.

No profit, no interstate. No problem.


----------



## koshergrl

EriktheRed said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> Three hour video. Not an old story.
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. It has a lead in with a variety of news releases about the topic.
> 
> Do you get money from the industry? Are you an abortion fluffer or something?
> 
> PS..."Always as many livers as possible". That's nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's happened recently to renew interest in this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I could, but I think I'll ask again: why is this suddenly getting such renewed attention?
> 
> Got a pretty good idea your answer is gonna be something like, "Give up, baby killer".
Click to expand...

 
It's never been released before. And it's not from 2000, liar.  So give up, baby killer.


----------



## EriktheRed

g5000 said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this is a new story, but it appears a similar thing happened in 2000.
> 
> Nothing came of it.  Congress even investigated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what actually makes this story *new*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a story from 2000.  There is a news clip at the beginning from 2000 which provides some context.
> 
> The Planned Parenthood video, though, is recent.  Very recent.
> 
> Did you people even watch it?
Click to expand...



My bad on that, but the question still stands.


----------



## paperview

EriktheRed said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> Three hour video. Not an old story.
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. It has a lead in with a variety of news releases about the topic.
> 
> Do you get money from the industry? Are you an abortion fluffer or something?
> 
> PS..."Always as many livers as possible". That's nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's happened recently to renew interest in this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could, but I think I'll ask again: why is this suddenly getting such renewed attention?
> 
> Got a pretty good idea your answer is gonna be something like, "Give up, baby killer".
Click to expand...

Politics.
CEC Hair on Fire perpetuation.


----------



## koshergrl

EriktheRed said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this is a new story, but it appears a similar thing happened in 2000.
> 
> Nothing came of it.  Congress even investigated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what actually makes this story *new*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a story from 2000.  There is a news clip at the beginning from 2000 which provides some context.
> 
> The Planned Parenthood video, though, is recent.  Very recent.
> 
> Did you people even watch it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad on that, but the question still stands.
Click to expand...

 
No, it doesn't. It fails, and is irrelevant and dishonest.


----------



## g5000

No Federal Law Broken In Sale of Fetal Body Parts US Attorney Says

"A US Attorney in Kansas has decided that a man who sold fetal body parts from an Overland Park, Kan., abortion clinic did not violate any federal laws.

"Miles Jones, the owner of Opening Lines, a West Frankfort, Ill., *company involved in the sale of fetal body parts to researchers, had been placed under investigation by the FBI following media accounts that he had been selling the body parts for profit, which is against federal law*.

"Acting US Attorney Jim Flory decided "after a thorough review of the issues involved," *that there were no violations of federal statutes,* indicating that the investigation had drawn to a close.

"Opening Lines had a price list that advertised costs for various fetal body parts, such as: $999 for the brain of a fetal child between 22-23 weeks, $150 for skin, $325 for a spinal cord, $550 for reproductive organs, and $75 apiece for eyes, according to March 2000 accounts of ABC's 20/20 and the Kansas City Star.

*"Jones told 20/20 producers during an episode that aired on March 8, 2000, that he was able to make $50,000 a week from the sale of fetal body parts*."


----------



## EriktheRed

koshergrl said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> Three hour video. Not an old story.
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. It has a lead in with a variety of news releases about the topic.
> 
> Do you get money from the industry? Are you an abortion fluffer or something?
> 
> PS..."Always as many livers as possible". That's nice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what's happened recently to renew interest in this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I could, but I think I'll ask again: why is this suddenly getting such renewed attention?
> 
> Got a pretty good idea your answer is gonna be something like, "Give up, baby killer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been released before. And it's not from 2000, liar.  So give up, baby killer.
Click to expand...


You're not answering the question and I'm guessing it's not because you don't understand it.


----------



## amrchaos

g5000 said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this is a new story, but it appears a similar thing happened in 2000.
> 
> Nothing came of it.  Congress even investigated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what actually makes this story *new*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a story from 2000.  There is a news clip at the beginning from 2000 which provides some context.
> 
> The Planned Parenthood video, though, is recent.  Very recent.
> 
> Did you people even watch it?
Click to expand...


My bad.  It does look new.  
So I guess the good doctor should be arrested on conspiracy charges?

Funny, I think there is better chance of Trump filing his financial disclosure before that.


----------



## EriktheRed

koshergrl said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.
> 
> 
> 
> No, this is a new story, but it appears a similar thing happened in 2000.
> 
> Nothing came of it.  Congress even investigated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what actually makes this story *new*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a story from 2000.  There is a news clip at the beginning from 2000 which provides some context.
> 
> The Planned Parenthood video, though, is recent.  Very recent.
> 
> Did you people even watch it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad on that, but the question still stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't. It fails, and is irrelevant and dishonest.
Click to expand...


It stands if I ask it again: why the renewed interest in this subject?


----------



## g5000

The claim in the OP that Planned Parenthood is breaking the law is dubious, at best.    The 20/20 story from 2000 which the OP video cites ultimately led to no indictments.  The process is entirely legal.

This is probably why no mainstream media outlets are carrying the story.  As utterly distasteful and horrible as this practice is, no crime is being committed.

It would be irresponsible for any media outlet to imply it is illegal.


----------



## Asclepias

amrchaos said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thing is, Go to a surgeon with a problem, and he'll try to convince you that you need surgery.  Go to a dealer to get your wrecked car fixed and they'll tell you that you need a new car.  Go to planned parenthood and they'll tell you you need an abortion.
> 
> Go to  school and the nurse will give you a pregnancy test, and 5 minutes after you find out you are pregnant, you're on your way to the abortion clinic.  If it is lucrative to sell what that confused child is carrying, do you think she's going to get a plan for parenthood, or a gown and stirrups?
> 
> And how many of those herded children will grow up to regret the school's/gov./pp decision?  How about removing the parents of the child from the decision?  If they had done something like that to one of my girls without my permission, I can't eventell you what my response would have been.
> 
> 
> 
> You sound idiotic. A school nurse cant even suggest a child go to get an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The will have to notify the parents
Click to expand...

Not if the child doesnt give consent. My wife is a school nurse.


----------



## EriktheRed

amrchaos said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It says very clearly at the beginning of this video that the story they're reporting that the story is from the year 2000.
> 
> Have there been any recent developments that have spurred this new interest in such an old story?
> 
> 
> 
> That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this is a new story, but it appears a similar thing happened in 2000.
> 
> Nothing came of it.  Congress even investigated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what actually makes this story *new*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a story from 2000.  There is a news clip at the beginning from 2000 which provides some context.
> 
> The Planned Parenthood video, though, is recent.  Very recent.
> 
> Did you people even watch it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad.  It does look new.
> So I guess the good doctor should be arrested on conspiracy charges?
> 
> Funny, I think there is better chance of Trump filing his financial disclosure before that.
Click to expand...



And how is this different from the 2000 story, which didn't yield any arrests either?

(not asking you, amr)


----------



## koshergrl

EriktheRed said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Three hour video. Not an old story.
> Liar. It has a lead in with a variety of news releases about the topic.
> 
> Do you get money from the industry? Are you an abortion fluffer or something?
> 
> PS..."Always as many livers as possible". That's nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's happened recently to renew interest in this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I could, but I think I'll ask again: why is this suddenly getting such renewed attention?
> 
> Got a pretty good idea your answer is gonna be something like, "Give up, baby killer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been released before. And it's not from 2000, liar.  So give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question and I'm guessing it's not because you don't understand it.
Click to expand...

 
The "question" such as it was was already addressed. Go peddle baby killing elsewhere, scum. Coyote is around here somewhere. Maybe you two can go in together and pick up some commissions for the pregnant girls you drag in.


----------



## g5000

EriktheRed said:


> It stands if I ask it again: why the renewed interest in this subject?


To re-stoke public opinion against the practice.


----------



## koshergrl

EriktheRed said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would explain why its not on any of the major news sites  Even Fox is not touching this.
> 
> 
> 
> No, this is a new story, but it appears a similar thing happened in 2000.
> 
> Nothing came of it.  Congress even investigated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, but what actually makes this story *new*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is not a story from 2000.  There is a news clip at the beginning from 2000 which provides some context.
> 
> The Planned Parenthood video, though, is recent.  Very recent.
> 
> Did you people even watch it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My bad.  It does look new.
> So I guess the good doctor should be arrested on conspiracy charges?
> 
> Funny, I think there is better chance of Trump filing his financial disclosure before that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And how is this different from the 2000 story, which didn't yield any arrests either?
> 
> (not asking you, amr)
Click to expand...

 

Do you know what "lead in" means?

Guess not.


----------



## Asclepias

koshergrl said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's happened recently to renew interest in this?
> 
> 
> 
> Give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I could, but I think I'll ask again: why is this suddenly getting such renewed attention?
> 
> Got a pretty good idea your answer is gonna be something like, "Give up, baby killer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been released before. And it's not from 2000, liar.  So give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question and I'm guessing it's not because you don't understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "question" such as it was was already addressed. Go peddle baby killing elsewhere, scum. Coyote is around here somewhere. Maybe you two can go in together and pick up some commissions for the pregnant girls you drag in.
Click to expand...

Stop being dramatic and answer the question.


----------



## Preacher

Planned Parenthood Executive Caught on Camera Bragging About Harvesting and Selling Fetal Organs

Sickening mental head cases in this country.


----------



## amrchaos

Asclepias said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thing is, Go to a surgeon with a problem, and he'll try to convince you that you need surgery.  Go to a dealer to get your wrecked car fixed and they'll tell you that you need a new car.  Go to planned parenthood and they'll tell you you need an abortion.
> 
> Go to  school and the nurse will give you a pregnancy test, and 5 minutes after you find out you are pregnant, you're on your way to the abortion clinic.  If it is lucrative to sell what that confused child is carrying, do you think she's going to get a plan for parenthood, or a gown and stirrups?
> 
> And how many of those herded children will grow up to regret the school's/gov./pp decision?  How about removing the parents of the child from the decision?  If they had done something like that to one of my girls without my permission, I can't eventell you what my response would have been.
> 
> 
> 
> You sound idiotic. A school nurse cant even suggest a child go to get an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The will have to notify the parents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if the child doesnt give consent. My wife is a school nurse.
Click to expand...


Again, my fault.

Somehow, I just feel letting the parents know would be the best thing. Unless there is something wrong with the home.

I assumed too much on this one.


----------



## LoneLaugher

And another!!!!

SCOOP!!!!


----------



## bodecea

SassyIrishLass said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're perfectly fine with it?
> 
> Absent them breaking any laws, you're okay with them dissecting babies and selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard?
> 
> You're down with that?
> 
> Of course you are, you're a scum of the earth dimocrap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean salvaging the donated tissue for scientific research, yeah sure, better than burning it for electricity don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's illegal....not that hard to grasp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if certain guidelines and procedures are followed--normally outlined by the  very laws your favorite politicians claimed makes it illegal.
> 
> Think about it--If what you said was true, then the video I showed you is evidence of a conspiracy.  Yet the good doctor has not faced any charges and is still in her position.
> 
> Strange, is it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gov Jindal is launching an investigation and has asked the FBI for their assistance, charges may very well be pending.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure he has...you plan on apologizing on the board if nothing comes of it?


----------



## EriktheRed

g5000 said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> It stands if I ask it again: why the renewed interest in this subject?
> 
> 
> 
> To re-stoke public opinion against the practice.
Click to expand...




Asclepias said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give up, baby killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could, but I think I'll ask again: why is this suddenly getting such renewed attention?
> 
> Got a pretty good idea your answer is gonna be something like, "Give up, baby killer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been released before. And it's not from 2000, liar.  So give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question and I'm guessing it's not because you don't understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "question" such as it was was already addressed. Go peddle baby killing elsewhere, scum. Coyote is around here somewhere. Maybe you two can go in together and pick up some commissions for the pregnant girls you drag in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being dramatic and answer the question.
Click to expand...


She won't because she knows the answer and won't admit it.

g5000 is right when he says this is to re-stoke public opinion against the practice but it's also to get raving RW nutbags such as KG all stoked up in general. If this isn't any different than the example given from 2000, then nothing is likely to come of it, as unsavory as it is.


----------



## g5000

In the female Doctor Mengele from Planned Parenthood, we see another classic example of mental compartmentalism which become necessary in order to prevent massive cognitive dissonance.

The pro-choice crowd always tries to divert the abortion issue into something about a woman's vagina, and yet in this video we see it is unmistakably about the destruction of a human body.  The pro-choice crowd wants us to focus on the vagina and avert our eyes from the real issue just a few inches above.

They deny the humanity of the fetus, and yet this butcher speaks in terms of "livers" and "lungs" and "extremities" and the head.

And then they have the audacity to claim they are helping to save lives when in fact they are ENDING a million lives a year!

Positively schizophrenic.


----------



## amrchaos

So, the GOP need an issue that bad.  How about we ask ol' Trump what he thinks about it?

Then the GOP will drown in 2 out of control wedge issues. Quit while you are ahead.


----------



## koshergrl

bodecea said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're perfectly fine with it?
> 
> Absent them breaking any laws, you're okay with them dissecting babies and selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard?
> 
> You're down with that?
> 
> Of course you are, you're a scum of the earth dimocrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean salvaging the donated tissue for scientific research, yeah sure, better than burning it for electricity don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's illegal....not that hard to grasp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if certain guidelines and procedures are followed--normally outlined by the  very laws your favorite politicians claimed makes it illegal.
> 
> Think about it--If what you said was true, then the video I showed you is evidence of a conspiracy.  Yet the good doctor has not faced any charges and is still in her position.
> 
> Strange, is it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gov Jindal is launching an investigation and has asked the FBI for their assistance, charges may very well be pending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I'm sure he has...you plan on apologizing on the board if nothing comes of it?
Click to expand...

 
Something has already come of it.

"Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Tuesday he is directing his state’s Department of Health and Hospitals to launch an investigation into Planned Parenthood."

"“This same organization is seeking to open an abortion clinic in New Orleans,” he continued. “I have instructed Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals to conduct an immediate investigation into this alleged evil and illegal activity and to not issue any licenses until this investigation is complete. I am also asking the FBI to assist DHH in investigating this alleged criminal activity by this organization.”

Jindal Announces Planned Parenthood Investigation Halts Licenses for New Abortion Clinic - Breitbart

The FBI doesn't give a shit, but meh.


----------



## koshergrl

EriktheRed said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> It stands if I ask it again: why the renewed interest in this subject?
> 
> 
> 
> To re-stoke public opinion against the practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could, but I think I'll ask again: why is this suddenly getting such renewed attention?
> 
> Got a pretty good idea your answer is gonna be something like, "Give up, baby killer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been released before. And it's not from 2000, liar.  So give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question and I'm guessing it's not because you don't understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "question" such as it was was already addressed. Go peddle baby killing elsewhere, scum. Coyote is around here somewhere. Maybe you two can go in together and pick up some commissions for the pregnant girls you drag in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being dramatic and answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She won't because she knows the answer and won't admit it.
> 
> g5000 is right when he says this is to re-stoke public opinion against the practice but it's also to get raving RW nutbags such as KG all stoked up in general. If this isn't any different than the example given from 2000, then nothing is likely to come of it, as unsavory as it is.
Click to expand...

It's already been answered. You ask a question that presumes that this is an *old* issue from 2000, and the video is from 2000. We established that you were lying.

So let's move on, hmmm?


----------



## EriktheRed

koshergrl said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> It stands if I ask it again: why the renewed interest in this subject?
> 
> 
> 
> To re-stoke public opinion against the practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been released before. And it's not from 2000, liar.  So give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question and I'm guessing it's not because you don't understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "question" such as it was was already addressed. Go peddle baby killing elsewhere, scum. Coyote is around here somewhere. Maybe you two can go in together and pick up some commissions for the pregnant girls you drag in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being dramatic and answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She won't because she knows the answer and won't admit it.
> 
> g5000 is right when he says this is to re-stoke public opinion against the practice but it's also to get raving RW nutbags such as KG all stoked up in general. If this isn't any different than the example given from 2000, then nothing is likely to come of it, as unsavory as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been answered. You ask a question that presumes that this is an *old* issue from 2000, and the video is from 2000. We established that you were lying.
> 
> So let's move on, hmmm?
Click to expand...



We established that I was wrong and I already admitted that myself and yet you keep harping on that one thing. It's ok, we've already established the answer anyway, and it's understandable why you won't answer it.


----------



## mikegriffith1

Fox News showed some of the undercover video, such as where a senior PP doctor and director talks about how she and other doctors kill the babies in such a way as to harvest the heart, the lungs, and other vital organs. Absolutely sickening.

And don't hold your breath waiting for modern pro-slavery apologists, aka the pro-abortion crowd, to express any concern, much less condemnation, of this shocking disclosure.


----------



## EriktheRed

amrchaos said:


> So, *the GOP need an issue that bad*.  How about we ask ol' Trump what he thinks about it?
> 
> Then the GOP will drown in 2 out of control wedge issues. Quit while you are ahead.


----------



## Asclepias

Ok. Here is newsweek.

http://www.newsweek.com/after-video...nthood-selling-body-parts-bobby-jindal-353828


----------



## amrchaos

g5000 said:


> In the female Doctor Mengele from Planned Parenthood, we see another classic example of mental compartmentalism which become necessary in order to prevent massive cognitive dissonance.
> 
> The pro-choice crowd always tries to divert the abortion issue into something about a woman's vagina, and yet in this video we see it is unmistakably about the destruction of a human body.  The pro-choice crowd wants us to focus on the vagina and avert our eyes from the real issue just a few inches above.
> 
> They deny the humanity of the fetus, and yet this butcher speaks in terms of "livers" and "lungs" and "extremities" and the head.
> 
> And then they have the audacity to claim they are helping to save lives when in fact they are ENDING a million lives a year!
> 
> Positively schizophrenic.



Actually, I go further than that.  I assume that both sperm and egg are alive.  The fertilized egg is alive.  The fetus is alive.

However, I argue that the mother, being the only known creator of the egg, fertilized egg, and the fetus, has the right to destroy the lifeform she created.

My argument is not the same as most pro-choice.

Now the only way to save lives is to make life saving breakthrough in research. Abortions,in themselves, save no lives.


----------



## SassyIrishLass




----------



## amrchaos

Asclepias said:


> Ok. Here is newsweek.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/after-video...nthood-selling-body-parts-bobby-jindal-353828


I just thought of something.

When Trump made those statements about illegals,Jindal was mute for over a week....

But within 1 day, Jindal responds like he is always on the ball.....hmmmm.


----------



## koshergrl

EriktheRed said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> It stands if I ask it again: why the renewed interest in this subject?
> 
> 
> 
> To re-stoke public opinion against the practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question and I'm guessing it's not because you don't understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "question" such as it was was already addressed. Go peddle baby killing elsewhere, scum. Coyote is around here somewhere. Maybe you two can go in together and pick up some commissions for the pregnant girls you drag in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being dramatic and answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She won't because she knows the answer and won't admit it.
> 
> g5000 is right when he says this is to re-stoke public opinion against the practice but it's also to get raving RW nutbags such as KG all stoked up in general. If this isn't any different than the example given from 2000, then nothing is likely to come of it, as unsavory as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been answered. You ask a question that presumes that this is an *old* issue from 2000, and the video is from 2000. We established that you were lying.
> 
> So let's move on, hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We established that I was wrong and I already admitted that myself and yet you keep harping on that one thing. It's ok, we've already established the answer anyway, and it's understandable why you won't answer it.
Click to expand...

 
No, I didn't keep harping on it, you're the one who keeps demanding I answer "the question"...which is "why are you suddenly interested in this old story". You admitted that it isn't an old story and we've established it's not an old story. So quit demanding I answer the question "why the re-surgence of interest in the old story".

Good grief. It's like they give you baby killers stupid pills.


----------



## koshergrl

amrchaos said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Here is newsweek.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/after-video...nthood-selling-body-parts-bobby-jindal-353828
> 
> 
> 
> I just thought of something.
> 
> When Trump made those statements about illegals,Jindal was mute for over a week....
> 
> But within 1 day, Jindal responds like he is always on the ball.....hmmmm.
Click to expand...

 Maybe it's because he doesn't give a shit about the criminal illegals who are killing people right and left? Ya think?


----------



## amrchaos

koshergrl said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Here is newsweek.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/after-video...nthood-selling-body-parts-bobby-jindal-353828
> 
> 
> 
> I just thought of something.
> 
> When Trump made those statements about illegals,Jindal was mute for over a week....
> 
> But within 1 day, Jindal responds like he is always on the ball.....hmmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe it's because he doesn't give a shit about the criminal illegals who are killing people right and left? Ya think?
Click to expand...



He eventually replied and denounced Trump.  So I guess that goes against what you think about Jindal.


----------



## koshergrl

amrchaos said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Here is newsweek.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/after-video...nthood-selling-body-parts-bobby-jindal-353828
> 
> 
> 
> I just thought of something.
> 
> When Trump made those statements about illegals,Jindal was mute for over a week....
> 
> But within 1 day, Jindal responds like he is always on the ball.....hmmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe it's because he doesn't give a shit about the criminal illegals who are killing people right and left? Ya think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He eventually replied and denounced Trump.  So I guess that goes against what you think about Jindal.
Click to expand...

Not really. I just don't see how that relates to this issue atall.

Meh.


----------



## EriktheRed

Asclepias said:


> Ok. Here is newsweek.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/after-video...nthood-selling-body-parts-bobby-jindal-353828




Ok, now we have something that's not a wingnut source.

Interesting tidbits:



> The center's leader, David Daleiden, has written anti-abortion literature for* The Weekly Standard *and is referenced on the pro-life website of Jill Stanek. Files uploaded by Daleiden to Scribd include "Prayers for the day," which Daleiden describes as "one way to structure your prayer life throughout the day that some people may find helpful."



So they're reporting on something put forth by a wingnut. Ok...



> Tissue donation is different than the harvesting of human organs for sale, though some do consider the two equally controversial, as in the case of Daleiden's organization. In the video,* which has been edited*, Nucatola discusses body parts and tissue as they are needed for research. "We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact," she is heard saying, though due to editing, the context is not entirely clear.



This sounds horrible in its flippancy, can't deny that. Illegal, though...?



> *At no point in the video does Nucatola say Planned Parenthood actually sells body parts, fetal or otherwise*, though the center has claimed Planned Parenthood is involved in the "illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts." *Similarly, she does not admit to selling tissue, either personally or through the organization*.





> Planned Parenthood has rejected Daleiden's claims and video. Eric Ferrero, the organization's vice president of communications, offered this statement:
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.
> 
> A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _



So PP has no problem giving a response, but...



> Daleiden didn't respond to _Newsweek's _request for comment.


----------



## Asclepias

EriktheRed said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Here is newsweek.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/after-video...nthood-selling-body-parts-bobby-jindal-353828
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now we have something that's not a wingnut source.
> 
> Interesting tidbits:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The center's leader, David Daleiden, has written anti-abortion literature for* The Weekly Standard *and is referenced on the pro-life website of Jill Stanek. Files uploaded by Daleiden to Scribd include "Prayers for the day," which Daleiden describes as "one way to structure your prayer life throughout the day that some people may find helpful."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they're reporting on something put forth by a wingnut. Ok...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tissue donation is different than the harvesting of human organs for sale, though some do consider the two equally controversial, as in the case of Daleiden's organization. In the video,* which has been edited*, Nucatola discusses body parts and tissue as they are needed for research. "We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact," she is heard saying, though due to editing, the context is not entirely clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds horrible in its flippancy, can't deny that. Illegal, though...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *At no point in the video does Nucatola say Planned Parenthood actually sells body parts, fetal or otherwise*, though the center has claimed Planned Parenthood is involved in the "illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts." *Similarly, she does not admit to selling tissue, either personally or through the organization*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood has rejected Daleiden's claims and video. Eric Ferrero, the organization's vice president of communications, offered this statement:
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.
> 
> A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So PP has no problem giving a response, but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daleiden didn't respond to _Newsweek's _request for comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Basically Jindall is grandstanding. This will go away after the election if not sooner. Mark my words.


----------



## EriktheRed

koshergrl said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> It stands if I ask it again: why the renewed interest in this subject?
> 
> 
> 
> To re-stoke public opinion against the practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "question" such as it was was already addressed. Go peddle baby killing elsewhere, scum. Coyote is around here somewhere. Maybe you two can go in together and pick up some commissions for the pregnant girls you drag in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop being dramatic and answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She won't because she knows the answer and won't admit it.
> 
> g5000 is right when he says this is to re-stoke public opinion against the practice but it's also to get raving RW nutbags such as KG all stoked up in general. If this isn't any different than the example given from 2000, then nothing is likely to come of it, as unsavory as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been answered. You ask a question that presumes that this is an *old* issue from 2000, and the video is from 2000. We established that you were lying.
> 
> So let's move on, hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We established that I was wrong and I already admitted that myself and yet you keep harping on that one thing. It's ok, we've already established the answer anyway, and it's understandable why you won't answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't keep harping on it, you're the one who keeps demanding I answer "the question"...which is "why are you suddenly interested in this old story". You admitted that it isn't an old story and we've established it's not an old story. So quit demanding I answer the question "why the re-surgence of interest in the old story".
> 
> Good grief. It's like they give you baby killers stupid pills.
Click to expand...


It's ok, we already have our answer anyway.


----------



## edthecynic

SassyIrishLass said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
Click to expand...

Yeah, PHOTOSHOPPED photos. Like everything that comes from the Right, it is a premeditated LIE!


----------



## edthecynic

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
Click to expand...

Yeah, easy prediction for the lying scum to make because it WAS PHOTOSHOPPED!


----------



## westwall

Asclepias said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
Click to expand...








She was a eugenicist so here are what they were talking about interspersed with some of her views on it.  The interesting part is at around 1:20.


----------



## koshergrl

EriktheRed said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To re-stoke public opinion against the practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being dramatic and answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She won't because she knows the answer and won't admit it.
> 
> g5000 is right when he says this is to re-stoke public opinion against the practice but it's also to get raving RW nutbags such as KG all stoked up in general. If this isn't any different than the example given from 2000, then nothing is likely to come of it, as unsavory as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been answered. You ask a question that presumes that this is an *old* issue from 2000, and the video is from 2000. We established that you were lying.
> 
> So let's move on, hmmm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We established that I was wrong and I already admitted that myself and yet you keep harping on that one thing. It's ok, we've already established the answer anyway, and it's understandable why you won't answer it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't keep harping on it, you're the one who keeps demanding I answer "the question"...which is "why are you suddenly interested in this old story". You admitted that it isn't an old story and we've established it's not an old story. So quit demanding I answer the question "why the re-surgence of interest in the old story".
> 
> Good grief. It's like they give you baby killers stupid pills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's ok, we already have our answer anyway.
Click to expand...

 
You had your answer ages ago, but pretended you didn't.

And who is "we"?


----------



## koshergrl

edthecynic said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, easy prediction for the lying scum to make because it WAS PHOTOSHOPPED!
Click to expand...

 Wow you sound hysterical.


----------



## bodecea

Odium said:


> Planned Parenthood Executive Caught on Camera Bragging About Harvesting and Selling Fetal Organs
> 
> Sickening mental head cases in this country.


Riiiight.  Believing this.


----------



## koshergrl

Fly that Nazi baby killing flag high, bode!


----------



## amrchaos

Asclepias said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Here is newsweek.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/after-video...nthood-selling-body-parts-bobby-jindal-353828
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now we have something that's not a wingnut source.
> 
> Interesting tidbits:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The center's leader, David Daleiden, has written anti-abortion literature for* The Weekly Standard *and is referenced on the pro-life website of Jill Stanek. Files uploaded by Daleiden to Scribd include "Prayers for the day," which Daleiden describes as "one way to structure your prayer life throughout the day that some people may find helpful."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they're reporting on something put forth by a wingnut. Ok...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tissue donation is different than the harvesting of human organs for sale, though some do consider the two equally controversial, as in the case of Daleiden's organization. In the video,* which has been edited*, Nucatola discusses body parts and tissue as they are needed for research. "We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact," she is heard saying, though due to editing, the context is not entirely clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds horrible in its flippancy, can't deny that. Illegal, though...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *At no point in the video does Nucatola say Planned Parenthood actually sells body parts, fetal or otherwise*, though the center has claimed Planned Parenthood is involved in the "illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts." *Similarly, she does not admit to selling tissue, either personally or through the organization*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood has rejected Daleiden's claims and video. Eric Ferrero, the organization's vice president of communications, offered this statement:
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.
> 
> A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So PP has no problem giving a response, but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daleiden didn't respond to _Newsweek's _request for comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basically Jindall is grandstanding. This will go away after the election if not sooner. Mark my words.
Click to expand...


I'm thinking he may have staged this.  

He was unusually fast on the draw, if you ask me--!


----------



## koshergrl

amrchaos said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Here is newsweek.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/after-video...nthood-selling-body-parts-bobby-jindal-353828
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now we have something that's not a wingnut source.
> 
> Interesting tidbits:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The center's leader, David Daleiden, has written anti-abortion literature for* The Weekly Standard *and is referenced on the pro-life website of Jill Stanek. Files uploaded by Daleiden to Scribd include "Prayers for the day," which Daleiden describes as "one way to structure your prayer life throughout the day that some people may find helpful."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they're reporting on something put forth by a wingnut. Ok...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tissue donation is different than the harvesting of human organs for sale, though some do consider the two equally controversial, as in the case of Daleiden's organization. In the video,* which has been edited*, Nucatola discusses body parts and tissue as they are needed for research. "We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact," she is heard saying, though due to editing, the context is not entirely clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds horrible in its flippancy, can't deny that. Illegal, though...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *At no point in the video does Nucatola say Planned Parenthood actually sells body parts, fetal or otherwise*, though the center has claimed Planned Parenthood is involved in the "illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts." *Similarly, she does not admit to selling tissue, either personally or through the organization*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood has rejected Daleiden's claims and video. Eric Ferrero, the organization's vice president of communications, offered this statement:
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.
> 
> A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So PP has no problem giving a response, but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daleiden didn't respond to _Newsweek's _request for comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basically Jindall is grandstanding. This will go away after the election if not sooner. Mark my words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking he may have staged this.
> 
> He was unusually fast on the draw, if you ask me--!
Click to expand...

 
How many weird pro-baby killing lies can you tell in one day?

You started out pretending the video was from 2000.

Then you pretended it was heavily edited.

Now you're pretending it's a conspiracy?

What a wacko. Of all the things to lie through your teeth to support...


----------



## edthecynic

JFish123 said:


>


When I saw the title of this thread I knew that some worthless scum sucking piece of lying CON$ervoFascist shit would post this photoshopped picture.

Here is the original:


----------



## edthecynic

Edgetho said:


> dimocraps are lying scum.....
> 
> Sanger was a stone-cold racist.
> Period


Another worthless piece of lying scum CON$ervative shit posting the photoshopped pix.


----------



## Preacher

bodecea said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood Executive Caught on Camera Bragging About Harvesting and Selling Fetal Organs
> 
> Sickening mental head cases in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiight.  Believing this.
Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video

They are denying it of course....but evidence doesn't lie.


----------



## hazlnut

Odium said:


> Planned Parenthood Executive Caught on Camera Bragging About Harvesting and Selling Fetal Organs
> 
> Sickening mental head cases in this country.




Your signature tells us everything we need to know about you.

Just another piece of dog shit from Stormfront.


----------



## edthecynic

koshergrl said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asc, I don't know what proof you need.  It's like wanting me to prove what Abraham Lincoln said.  I wasn't there.  But excerpts of her many many  speeches, by people that were there, all say the same thing.  She wasn't shy about her position.  Research the despot, and you'll see for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, easy prediction for the lying scum to make because it WAS PHOTOSHOPPED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you sound hysterical.
Click to expand...

The truth always sounds hysterical to worthless lying scum!


----------



## hazlnut

The video is highly edited to mislead the religious nuts.


----------



## paperview

EriktheRed said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Here is newsweek.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/after-video...nthood-selling-body-parts-bobby-jindal-353828
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now we have something that's not a wingnut source.
> 
> Interesting tidbits:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The center's leader, David Daleiden, has written anti-abortion literature for* The Weekly Standard *and is referenced on the pro-life website of Jill Stanek. Files uploaded by Daleiden to Scribd include "Prayers for the day," which Daleiden describes as "one way to structure your prayer life throughout the day that some people may find helpful."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they're reporting on something put forth by a wingnut. Ok...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tissue donation is different than the harvesting of human organs for sale, though some do consider the two equally controversial, as in the case of Daleiden's organization. In the video,* which has been edited*, Nucatola discusses body parts and tissue as they are needed for research. "We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact," she is heard saying, though due to editing, the context is not entirely clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds horrible in its flippancy, can't deny that. Illegal, though...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *At no point in the video does Nucatola say Planned Parenthood actually sells body parts, fetal or otherwise*, though the center has claimed Planned Parenthood is involved in the "illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts." *Similarly, she does not admit to selling tissue, either personally or through the organization*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood has rejected Daleiden's claims and video. Eric Ferrero, the organization's vice president of communications, offered this statement:
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.
> 
> A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So PP has no problem giving a response, but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daleiden didn't respond to _Newsweek's _request for comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*The minute I saw this video, I thougth, man, this has a James O'Keefe smell to it.*

And sure enough. There he was.

The guy behind it

is this guy:






David Daleiden

The new organization *"Center for Medical Progress*" he runs has been up for just a few months.

and tada:
*James O’Keefe is a friend of David Daleiden’s.*

He's also affiliated with the fanatics: Operation Rescue

Baby Parts for Sale snopes.com


----------



## Asclepias

westwall said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was a eugenicist so here are what they were talking about interspersed with some of her views on it.  The interesting part is at around 1:20.
Click to expand...


Everything in that video I already know about but thanks.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Well, that settles it  then Virginia,  if snopes said it it must be true.  Just like factcheck.soros.........


----------



## koshergrl

edthecynic said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I saw the title of this thread I knew that some worthless scum sucking piece of lying CON$ervoFascist shit would post this photoshopped picture.
> 
> Here is the original:
Click to expand...

 
Hahahahahahahahahahaha that's funnier than shit


----------



## FA_Q2

It is interesting to me that the sale of fetal tissue is somehow utterly revolting (and most seem to agree on that point) yet tearing it apart and killing it are totally acceptable to half the posters here?

That is pretty damn backwards - the act of killing the unborn child is far worse than actually using what is left over for something useful.


----------



## FA_Q2

edthecynic said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I saw the title of this thread I knew that some worthless scum sucking piece of lying CON$ervoFascist shit would post this photoshopped picture.
> 
> Here is the original:
Click to expand...

Are you just upset about the picture or do you challenge the entire idea that she spoke at KKK rallies?


----------



## The Irish Ram

I don't care if they wore their uniforms to the meeting or not.  The message she presented to the KKK was so well received, that she bragged about it.  I don't care what someone did to a photo.  Her message was received loud and clear.  Now what could she have been proposing that would cause the KKK and others of that ilk to respond to her so well???

The Truth About Margaret Sanger 
"I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan...I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses...I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)

Did someone Photoshop her autobiography?  I think you are missing her point if you think she was a friend to the black community.


----------



## Coyote

Darkwind said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, that must be one hell of an acid flashback....
> 
> Perpetual pregnancy and slavery....all rolled into one fantasy...
Click to expand...


Go ahead and laugh.

Sanger lived in an era where married women had no choice but to consent to sex - that was part of marriage.  Sex led to children. Poor women often had more children then they could support - continuing the cycle of poverty.  Other means of birth control were highly unreliable not to mention that birth control was not really legal.  Repeated pregnancies take a toll on a woman's body - with some pretty serious health effects like vaginal fistulas.  Those effects are largely gone from a country like the U.S. with modern medicine, good preventive care and the ability of a family - wife AND husband - to limit the number of children they might choose to have.  So ya, Sanger sure was evil wasn't she - the audacity of allowing woman to control how many pregnancies they wanted.


----------



## The Irish Ram

lol, you little thoroughbred you.........
She was a saint.  Looking after the blacks and the klan and  all.


----------



## Coyote

amrchaos said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're perfectly fine with it?
> 
> Absent them breaking any laws, you're okay with them dissecting babies and selling the parts like an Auto Salvage Yard?
> 
> You're down with that?
> 
> Of course you are, you're a scum of the earth dimocrap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean salvaging the donated tissue for scientific research, yeah sure, better than burning it for electricity don't you think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's illegal....not that hard to grasp
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if certain guidelines and procedures are followed--normally outlined by the  very laws your favorite politicians claimed makes it illegal.
> 
> Think about it--If what you said was true, then the video I showed you is evidence of a conspiracy.  Yet the good doctor has not faced any charges and is still in her position.
> 
> Strange, is it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gov Jindal is launching an investigation and has asked the FBI for their assistance, charges may very well be pending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story broke in 2000!
Click to expand...


oh shit- really?  15 years ago an dno charges?


----------



## Coyote

The Irish Ram said:


> .
> 
> *You do know that a woman can have a full term baby, NOT FETUS, baby's neck slit while in the process of giving birth, if she doesn't like it's hair color, right?  A viable baby that is partially  out of the woman's body, and is breathing and alive on it own.  Slit a puppy's neck and watch the outrage.  Killing children is ok though, especially if you can sell it's parts.*
> 
> .



Really now?

I'd like to see some evidence to support this.


----------



## Coyote

hadit said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> African slaves were once considered less human than their white counterparts.  Did it make them less human?
Click to expand...


A fetus isn't a person.

Are you going to grant personhood to sperm now?


----------



## JFish123

edthecynic said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I saw the title of this thread I knew that some worthless scum sucking piece of lying CON$ervoFascist shit would post this photoshopped picture.
> 
> Here is the original:
Click to expand...

Lol the picture did look doctored lol. But her quotes aren't photoshopped nor is her kkk connections lol. And calling me a fascist anx not Sanger is a big LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## paperview

The donation of aborted human fetal tissue may come as a shock to a public unfamiliar with the practice but it is, in fact, a longstanding one.



The Real Story Behind That Shady Planned Parenthood Video - The Daily Beast


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law seems clear enough....
> 
> (a) *Purchase of tissue*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
> (b) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation*
> It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—
> (1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
> (2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
> (3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
> (c) *Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes*
> It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
> (1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
> (2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
> 
> 42 U.S. Code 289g 2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have a lawyer explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My husband is an attorney, he says if this is true PP is so fugged
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's true. They're already calling for a criminal investigation and Jindal is on it.
Click to expand...


That doesn't make it true.


----------



## JFish123

edthecynic said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I saw the title of this thread I knew that some worthless scum sucking piece of lying CON$ervoFascist shit would post this photoshopped picture.
> 
> Here is the original:
Click to expand...

Lol it did look photoshopped to me but her quotes and kkk connections aren't photoshopped lol and calling me a fascist and not Sanger is a Big LOL 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JFish123

edthecynic said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is overwhelming. There are photos of her giving speeches to the KKK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide it then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you will do is claim it's a photoshop. Google Sanger, KKK, speech it will pop up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, easy prediction for the lying scum to make because it WAS PHOTOSHOPPED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you sound hysterical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The truth always sounds hysterical to worthless lying scum!
Click to expand...

Someone needs a breather lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> " The costs to which Ferraro alludes would not apply in abortions, since that is a paid-for procedure by the mother. Transportation costs would almost certainly not apply on a body-part basis either, especially with the wide disparities of price noted by PP’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola in the video.
> "The context of the video was clearly not reimbursement for transportation of random tissue. Nucatola talks extensively about the demand for specific body parts in relation to _price_. “A lot of people want liver,” Nucatola states, and then explains how they train their staff to perform these abortions so that PP clinics can harvest organs to _meet specific demand, _and then make the sale. At one point, Nucatola even talks about body parts being on a “menu.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood responds Nucatola s just talking about reimbursements Update Jindal orders LA probe halt to PP license Update Unedited 3-hour video added Hot Air




You're talking about a claim of supposedly hours and hours of investigative evidence, original sources and testimony that only produced one 8-minute, heavily edited video.

Why is it they don't show the entire unedited video?


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what's happened recently to renew interest in this?
> 
> 
> 
> Give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I could, but I think I'll ask again: why is this suddenly getting such renewed attention?
> 
> Got a pretty good idea your answer is gonna be something like, "Give up, baby killer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been released before. And it's not from 2000, liar.  So give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question and I'm guessing it's not because you don't understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "question" such as it was was already addressed. Go peddle baby killing elsewhere, scum. Coyote is around here somewhere. Maybe you two can go in together and pick up some commissions for the pregnant girls you drag in.
Click to expand...


babykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykiller

That's all you can come up with.


----------



## The Irish Ram

Coyote said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> *You do know that a woman can have a full term baby, NOT FETUS, baby's neck slit while in the process of giving birth, if she doesn't like it's hair color, right?  A viable baby that is partially  out of the woman's body, and is breathing and alive on it own.  Slit a puppy's neck and watch the outrage.  Killing children is ok though, especially if you can sell it's parts.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?
> 
> I'd like to see some evidence to support this.
Click to expand...


Yeah, really now.  Here is congressional testimony of 1 nurse who lived it.
She had no reason to lie.  You can google the full report, lest you cry context, context, but it was a bit long to post, so the question is:
Was she lying?  If so why?
And only a idiot would use snopes.soros or factcheck.soros as the end all of truthfulness.  That works only if you are one of those gullible stupid Americans he's so found of...

Here’s a little bit from Stanek’s testimony before Congress:

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was about 22 weeks old, weighed about a half a pound, and was about 10 inches long, about the size of my hand. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy that he had trying to breathe. Toward the end of his life he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his little heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, tied his hands together with a string, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our other dead patients go


----------



## The Irish Ram

> Ximena Renaerts is quadriplegic, has cerebral palsy, and has the mental age of a three-year-old. Ximena was born following a failed abortion and left unattended in a utility closet for over an hour until a nurse defied orders to just let her die


----------



## The Irish Ram

> *Dr. Joseph Melnick* was convicted of infanticide and unlawful abortion after the death of 32-week infant girl (3 lb, 9 oz) born during an abortion Melnick performed on a 13-year-old girl at what was then West Park Hospital, Philadelphia, in 1984. The nursing supervisor testified that "Baby Girl Smith" showed signs of life and gasped and moaned following the abortion, others in room pointed out infant's condition and requested that Melnick aid the infant. The nursing supervisor attempted CPR on the baby, detecting a heartbeat. She found a death certificate filled out by Melnick stating that the infant was stillborn. She tore up the death certificate, whereupon Mewlnick filled out a birth certificate for the infant. Another doctor ordered resuscitation, but the baby died after 90 minutes. Melnick indicated on medical records that he observed "agonal breathing" in the infant, which he defined for the judge as "It's the last effort a human being makes to sustain life." After the judge asked him three times he admitted that agonal breathing would not be observed in a stillborn infant. An autopsy found that the infant had a full head of hair, and skin typical of a term infant. Melnick allegedly admitted, "After the fact, it occurred to me that I had miscalculated." He also admitted that when the patient insisted that she was four months pregnant, Melnick noted the size of the infant and told her "if that's true, your baby would have been 18 pounds at birth." Melnick's defense claimed that the prosecution was based on "frustration raised over the abortion issue" rather than the evidence, and that a conviction would have "chilling effect" on other doctors' willinglness to perform abortions. (_LA Times Magazine_ 1-7-90; _Houston Chronicle_ 6-13-89; United Press International 10-3-84; Associated Press 3-16-89, 5-13-89, 6-12-89, 12-20-89


----------



## Coyote

FA_Q2 said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I saw the title of this thread I knew that some worthless scum sucking piece of lying CON$ervoFascist shit would post this photoshopped picture.
> 
> Here is the original:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When I saw the title of this thread I knew that some worthless scum sucking piece of lying CON$ervoFascist shit would post this photoshopped picture.
> 
> Here is the original:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you just upset about the picture or do you challenge the entire idea that she spoke at KKK rallies?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you just upset about the picture *or do you challenge the entire idea that she spoke at KKK rallies*?
Click to expand...


Yes.

Can you guys manage the truth for once?

She did not speak at "KKK Rallies".  She gave a talk, on birth control, one time, *to the women's auxiliary of the KKK*.  The effing picture isn't even a well done photoshop.

Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women's auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as "one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing," and added that she had to use only "the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand."[47] Sanger's talk was well received by the group, and as a result, "a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered."[47]


----------



## Coyote

The Irish Ram said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> *You do know that a woman can have a full term baby, NOT FETUS, baby's neck slit while in the process of giving birth, if she doesn't like it's hair color, right?  A viable baby that is partially  out of the woman's body, and is breathing and alive on it own.  Slit a puppy's neck and watch the outrage.  Killing children is ok though, especially if you can sell it's parts.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really now?
> 
> I'd like to see some evidence to support this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, really now.  Here is congressional testimony of 1 nurse who lived it.
> She had no reason to lie.  You can google the full report, lest you cry context, context, but it was a bit long to post, so the question is:
> Was she lying?  If so why?
> And only a idiot would use snopes.soros or factcheck.soros as the end all of truthfulness.  That works only if you are one of those gullible stupid Americans he's so found of...
> 
> Here’s a little bit from Stanek’s testimony before Congress:
> 
> One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was about 22 weeks old, weighed about a half a pound, and was about 10 inches long, about the size of my hand. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy that he had trying to breathe. Toward the end of his life he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his little heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, tied his hands together with a string, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our other dead patients go
Click to expand...


Factcheck and snopes are both decent sources.  You just don't like it because they don't agree with you.

I'm asking for evidence of your claim:  "...* a full term baby, NOT FETUS, baby's neck slit while in the process of giving birth, if she doesn't like it's hair color, right?..."*


----------



## Coyote

The Irish Ram said:


> *Dr. Joseph Melnick* was convicted of infanticide and unlawful abortion after the death of 32-week infant girl (3 lb, 9 oz) born during an abortion Melnick performed on a 13-year-old girl at what was then West Park Hospital, Philadelphia, in 1984. The nursing supervisor testified that "Baby Girl Smith" showed signs of life and gasped and moaned following the abortion, others in room pointed out infant's condition and requested that Melnick aid the infant. The nursing supervisor attempted CPR on the baby, detecting a heartbeat. She found a death certificate filled out by Melnick stating that the infant was stillborn. She tore up the death certificate, whereupon Mewlnick filled out a birth certificate for the infant. Another doctor ordered resuscitation, but the baby died after 90 minutes. Melnick indicated on medical records that he observed "agonal breathing" in the infant, which he defined for the judge as "It's the last effort a human being makes to sustain life." After the judge asked him three times he admitted that agonal breathing would not be observed in a stillborn infant. An autopsy found that the infant had a full head of hair, and skin typical of a term infant. Melnick allegedly admitted, "After the fact, it occurred to me that I had miscalculated." He also admitted that when the patient insisted that she was four months pregnant, Melnick noted the size of the infant and told her "if that's true, your baby would have been 18 pounds at birth." Melnick's defense claimed that the prosecution was based on "frustration raised over the abortion issue" rather than the evidence, and that a conviction would have "chilling effect" on other doctors' willinglness to perform abortions. (_LA Times Magazine_ 1-7-90; _Houston Chronicle_ 6-13-89; United Press International 10-3-84; Associated Press 3-16-89, 5-13-89, 6-12-89, 12-20-89
Click to expand...



Irish - you need to provide links for your quotes.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> " The costs to which Ferraro alludes would not apply in abortions, since that is a paid-for procedure by the mother. Transportation costs would almost certainly not apply on a body-part basis either, especially with the wide disparities of price noted by PP’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola in the video.
> "The context of the video was clearly not reimbursement for transportation of random tissue. Nucatola talks extensively about the demand for specific body parts in relation to _price_. “A lot of people want liver,” Nucatola states, and then explains how they train their staff to perform these abortions so that PP clinics can harvest organs to _meet specific demand, _and then make the sale. At one point, Nucatola even talks about body parts being on a “menu.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood responds Nucatola s just talking about reimbursements Update Jindal orders LA probe halt to PP license Update Unedited 3-hour video added Hot Air
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking about a claim of supposedly hours and hours of investigative evidence, original sources and testimony that only produced one 8-minute, heavily edited video.
> 
> Why is it they don't show the entire unedited video?
Click to expand...



They have....go find it...3 hours long...


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs
> 
> Best comment so far.... "Weird how clumps of cells magically become "intact livers and hearts" once it's time for Planned Parenthood to harvest that baby for cash."


Stil fucking lying, a Lassie?


----------



## paddymurphy

JGalt said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".
> 
> Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.
> 
> 
> 
> The right used these issues as wedge issues in the past.  Now that the nation has decided the Democrats are right, they are going to try to ignore them.  Why should Walker be permitted to not tell us what he will do on these two issues?  He has advanced draconian anti-abortion legislation in his state; laws that treat women like children.  Those actions are entirely relevant to whether or not he should get a person's vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's "draconian" about having an expectant mother to have an ultra-sound before having an abortion? Is defunding an organization started by a self-admitted racist who sought to reduce the population of blacks "draconian"? And how does any bill Walker passed treat woman like "children"? His own Lt. Governor is a woman, are you saying Walker hates women? His concealed carry law gives women the same right to defend themselves, as men. Besides, what difference does it make what he does? You're not going to vote for him or any other Republican, you're going to waste your vote on "Hillary/Sanders/Biden/Insert Communist of your choice here."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was one of the provisions.  The law that requires that doctors have admitting privileges is absolutely designed to make it more difficult for women to have a perfectly legal procedure.  There is no reason for this law other than to interfere with the right of a woman to have access to abortion.  There is no medical reason to require an ultrasound. None.  It is a law that suggests that women are really not aware of what the are doing when they decide to have an abortion.  It is a violation of their rights to force them to undergo any kind of medical procedure.  As for the idiotic comments about guns, was it unlawful from women to carry a concealed weapon before while it was legal for men?  What a moronic example.  And your comments about Planned parenthood mimic the same lies that other of your ilk spread.  I have voted for Republicans.. for the US Senate, for Congress and for Governor of my state.  I will not vote for Walker because of his far right views; views that are out of touch with the American public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how much of that is pandering to idiot righties...but the anti abortion issue, above all others, is rank with hysteria and ignorance. And unusually enough, not from both sides. It's a rare example of righties being wrong about everything on one issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are not anti-abortion. While we believe abortion is basically the murder of an unborn human being, there are special cases where abortion is justified.
> 
> Conservatives mainly have an issue with taxpayer-funded abortions, or the forcing of religious-based medical facilities to perform them.
> 
> We also believe it's up to each individual state to define abortion policies, not one broad policy dictated by the federal government. After all, abortion is a violation of that unborn person's Constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sadly, those on the left consider an unborn child to be no more than a "growth" which can be removed and tossed in a trash can.
Click to expand...

There are no taxpayer funded abortions and no religious hospital has ever been forced to perform them. Idiot.


----------



## JGalt

paddymurphy said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right used these issues as wedge issues in the past.  Now that the nation has decided the Democrats are right, they are going to try to ignore them.  Why should Walker be permitted to not tell us what he will do on these two issues?  He has advanced draconian anti-abortion legislation in his state; laws that treat women like children.  Those actions are entirely relevant to whether or not he should get a person's vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's "draconian" about having an expectant mother to have an ultra-sound before having an abortion? Is defunding an organization started by a self-admitted racist who sought to reduce the population of blacks "draconian"? And how does any bill Walker passed treat woman like "children"? His own Lt. Governor is a woman, are you saying Walker hates women? His concealed carry law gives women the same right to defend themselves, as men. Besides, what difference does it make what he does? You're not going to vote for him or any other Republican, you're going to waste your vote on "Hillary/Sanders/Biden/Insert Communist of your choice here."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was one of the provisions.  The law that requires that doctors have admitting privileges is absolutely designed to make it more difficult for women to have a perfectly legal procedure.  There is no reason for this law other than to interfere with the right of a woman to have access to abortion.  There is no medical reason to require an ultrasound. None.  It is a law that suggests that women are really not aware of what the are doing when they decide to have an abortion.  It is a violation of their rights to force them to undergo any kind of medical procedure.  As for the idiotic comments about guns, was it unlawful from women to carry a concealed weapon before while it was legal for men?  What a moronic example.  And your comments about Planned parenthood mimic the same lies that other of your ilk spread.  I have voted for Republicans.. for the US Senate, for Congress and for Governor of my state.  I will not vote for Walker because of his far right views; views that are out of touch with the American public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how much of that is pandering to idiot righties...but the anti abortion issue, above all others, is rank with hysteria and ignorance. And unusually enough, not from both sides. It's a rare example of righties being wrong about everything on one issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are not anti-abortion. While we believe abortion is basically the murder of an unborn human being, there are special cases where abortion is justified.
> 
> Conservatives mainly have an issue with taxpayer-funded abortions, or the forcing of religious-based medical facilities to perform them.
> 
> We also believe it's up to each individual state to define abortion policies, not one broad policy dictated by the federal government. After all, abortion is a violation of that unborn person's Constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sadly, those on the left consider an unborn child to be no more than a "growth" which can be removed and tossed in a trash can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no taxpayer funded abortions and no religious hospital has ever been forced to perform them. Idiot.
Click to expand...



There are anti-abortion protesters outside of several Catholic hospitals I know of, fucktard. Maybe you should spend less time watching the Daily Show and MSNBC and take a look around you.


----------



## depotoo

If you really cared about what all she wrote and said, you could easily find it online, but you don't therefore you haven't. All her scanned newsletters, speeches, etc. are available, if you go to unbiased sources.
Sadly, you have fallen for the lies.





Asclepias said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP already makes millions each year performing abortions.    They also get millions in tax dollars, which is odd considering they are a business that sees a profit.
> 
> In the past, we've seen video proof of them helping prostitution 'businesses' and it's been proven that they don't offer the services that the left claims.   They do abortions.    If you need other care, they refer you elsewhere.
> 
> Now it looks like they are illegally selling body parts from aborted fetuses.    Not surprising.    They like making money and they've been given a pass on past deceitful and illegal practices.
> 
> If this were a conservative organization, the DOJ and IRS would be all over them.    They would have been investigated and shut down years ago.    Instead, they slide by because they support the left's agenda.   As Margaret Sanger put it when she started it, the goal of PP is to exterminate the negro population.    I don't see any change today considering that millions of minority babies are aborted each year.
> 
> Another tape showing the nefarious goals of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Planned Parenthood Caught Trying To Sell Aborted Baby Body Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a credible link of Sanger stating the goal of PP was to exterminate Blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you joking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I joke about it? If you cant answer the question its OK.
> 
> Cain s False Attack on Planned Parenthood
Click to expand...


----------



## depotoo

I understand today they tried to say the fees were for the shipping costs of the parts.  Yeah, right.  At least with that little niblet they can't try to deny they do it.


----------



## paddymurphy

JGalt said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's "draconian" about having an expectant mother to have an ultra-sound before having an abortion? Is defunding an organization started by a self-admitted racist who sought to reduce the population of blacks "draconian"? And how does any bill Walker passed treat woman like "children"? His own Lt. Governor is a woman, are you saying Walker hates women? His concealed carry law gives women the same right to defend themselves, as men. Besides, what difference does it make what he does? You're not going to vote for him or any other Republican, you're going to waste your vote on "Hillary/Sanders/Biden/Insert Communist of your choice here."
> 
> 
> 
> That was one of the provisions.  The law that requires that doctors have admitting privileges is absolutely designed to make it more difficult for women to have a perfectly legal procedure.  There is no reason for this law other than to interfere with the right of a woman to have access to abortion.  There is no medical reason to require an ultrasound. None.  It is a law that suggests that women are really not aware of what the are doing when they decide to have an abortion.  It is a violation of their rights to force them to undergo any kind of medical procedure.  As for the idiotic comments about guns, was it unlawful from women to carry a concealed weapon before while it was legal for men?  What a moronic example.  And your comments about Planned parenthood mimic the same lies that other of your ilk spread.  I have voted for Republicans.. for the US Senate, for Congress and for Governor of my state.  I will not vote for Walker because of his far right views; views that are out of touch with the American public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how much of that is pandering to idiot righties...but the anti abortion issue, above all others, is rank with hysteria and ignorance. And unusually enough, not from both sides. It's a rare example of righties being wrong about everything on one issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are not anti-abortion. While we believe abortion is basically the murder of an unborn human being, there are special cases where abortion is justified.
> 
> Conservatives mainly have an issue with taxpayer-funded abortions, or the forcing of religious-based medical facilities to perform them.
> 
> We also believe it's up to each individual state to define abortion policies, not one broad policy dictated by the federal government. After all, abortion is a violation of that unborn person's Constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sadly, those on the left consider an unborn child to be no more than a "growth" which can be removed and tossed in a trash can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no taxpayer funded abortions and no religious hospital has ever been forced to perform them. Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are anti-abortion protesters outside of several Catholic hospitals I know of, fucktard. Maybe you should spend less time watching the Daily Show and MSNBC and take a look around you.
Click to expand...

No, there are not, you lying fuck.  You cannot link to a single story about a religious hospital being forced to perform an abortion.


----------



## depotoo

No, he's not.  They even admitted to it today.  They tried to explain away the fees they receive.





paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs
> 
> Best comment so far.... "Weird how clumps of cells magically become "intact livers and hearts" once it's time for Planned Parenthood to harvest that baby for cash."
> 
> 
> 
> Stil fucking lying, a Lassie?
Click to expand...


----------



## paddymurphy

depotoo said:


> No, he's not.  They even admitted to it today.  They tried to explain away the fees they receive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs
> 
> Best comment so far.... "Weird how clumps of cells magically become "intact livers and hearts" once it's time for Planned Parenthood to harvest that baby for cash."
> 
> 
> 
> Stil fucking lying, a Lassie?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

A lassie is a female.  And, yes, it is a lie.  The fucking video is from a year ago.  Anybody charged?


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give up, baby killer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could, but I think I'll ask again: why is this suddenly getting such renewed attention?
> 
> Got a pretty good idea your answer is gonna be something like, "Give up, baby killer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been released before. And it's not from 2000, liar.  So give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question and I'm guessing it's not because you don't understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "question" such as it was was already addressed. Go peddle baby killing elsewhere, scum. Coyote is around here somewhere. Maybe you two can go in together and pick up some commissions for the pregnant girls you drag in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> babykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykiller
> 
> That's all you can come up with.
Click to expand...




> babykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykiller
> 
> That's all you can come up with.




When they are killing babies and selling their body parts....what else do you need to say.....?


----------



## JGalt

paddymurphy said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was one of the provisions.  The law that requires that doctors have admitting privileges is absolutely designed to make it more difficult for women to have a perfectly legal procedure.  There is no reason for this law other than to interfere with the right of a woman to have access to abortion.  There is no medical reason to require an ultrasound. None.  It is a law that suggests that women are really not aware of what the are doing when they decide to have an abortion.  It is a violation of their rights to force them to undergo any kind of medical procedure.  As for the idiotic comments about guns, was it unlawful from women to carry a concealed weapon before while it was legal for men?  What a moronic example.  And your comments about Planned parenthood mimic the same lies that other of your ilk spread.  I have voted for Republicans.. for the US Senate, for Congress and for Governor of my state.  I will not vote for Walker because of his far right views; views that are out of touch with the American public.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know how much of that is pandering to idiot righties...but the anti abortion issue, above all others, is rank with hysteria and ignorance. And unusually enough, not from both sides. It's a rare example of righties being wrong about everything on one issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are not anti-abortion. While we believe abortion is basically the murder of an unborn human being, there are special cases where abortion is justified.
> 
> Conservatives mainly have an issue with taxpayer-funded abortions, or the forcing of religious-based medical facilities to perform them.
> 
> We also believe it's up to each individual state to define abortion policies, not one broad policy dictated by the federal government. After all, abortion is a violation of that unborn person's Constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sadly, those on the left consider an unborn child to be no more than a "growth" which can be removed and tossed in a trash can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are no taxpayer funded abortions and no religious hospital has ever been forced to perform them. Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There are anti-abortion protesters outside of several Catholic hospitals I know of, fucktard. Maybe you should spend less time watching the Daily Show and MSNBC and take a look around you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, there are not, you lying fuck.  You cannot link to a single story about a religious hospital being forced to perform an abortion.
Click to expand...


You're the worthless piece of shit who's lying. Go fuck yourself, ok sweetmeat?


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could, but I think I'll ask again: why is this suddenly getting such renewed attention?
> 
> Got a pretty good idea your answer is gonna be something like, "Give up, baby killer".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's never been released before. And it's not from 2000, liar.  So give up, baby killer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not answering the question and I'm guessing it's not because you don't understand it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "question" such as it was was already addressed. Go peddle baby killing elsewhere, scum. Coyote is around here somewhere. Maybe you two can go in together and pick up some commissions for the pregnant girls you drag in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> babykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykiller
> 
> That's all you can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> babykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykillerbabykiller
> 
> That's all you can come up with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When they are killing babies and selling their body parts....what else do you need to say.....?
Click to expand...


The posters here are killing babies?  That's a stretch.


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> African slaves were once considered less human than their white counterparts.  Did it make them less human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Are you going to grant personhood to sperm now?
Click to expand...


When the sperm hits the egg and starts to grow....it is a human being.....


----------



## Coyote

2aguy said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> African slaves were once considered less human than their white counterparts.  Did it make them less human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Are you going to grant personhood to sperm now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the sperm hits the egg and starts to grow....it is a human being.....
Click to expand...


No.  It's a zygote.  It might eventually become a human being.


----------



## depotoo

And where did she set up these clinics?  Possibly among the inferior classes, as she liked to call them?  After all, in her own words, she wished "to create a race of thoroughbreds".  See her Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)






Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
Click to expand...


----------



## 2aguy

Coyote said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> African slaves were once considered less human than their white counterparts.  Did it make them less human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Are you going to grant personhood to sperm now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When the sperm hits the egg and starts to grow....it is a human being.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  It's a zygote.  It might eventually become a human being.
Click to expand...



Yes...I get it...by calling it a zygote you can kill it and sleep at night....one day you may actually understand the truth.....be gentle with yourself...you were brainwashed to allow the killing of babies....


----------



## JFish123

Margaret Sanger: Anyone care to agree with her?
And the government should “give certain dysgenic groups (those with ‘bad genes’) in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.”
– Margaret Sanger, “A Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108 
“Hordes of people [are] born, who live, yet who have done absolutely nothing to advance the race one iota. Their lives are hopeless repetitions… Such human weeds clog up the path, drain up the energies and the resources of this little earth. We must clear the way for a better world; we must cultivate our garden.”
– Margaret Sanger. Birth Control: Facts and Responsibilities, 1925 
We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. – Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, 1939
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America. 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America. 








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

This is easy for me, hopefully someone will murder Dr. Nucatola, and sell her organs to people who actually need them. Selling dead babies like they were cattle or fish, puts her high on my 'hope she vanishes' list.


----------



## tinydancer

NYcarbineer said:


> So far this story is only on the rightwing propaganda circuit.



Already picked up overseas at DM. I'm certain everyone is going to fact check this one big time. I don't blame mainstream for taking their time with this.


----------



## JGalt

UllysesS.Archer said:


> This is easy for me, hopefully someone will murder Dr. Nucatola, and sell her organs to people who actually need them. Selling dead babies like they were cattle or fish, puts her high on my 'hope she vanishes' list.




I hope I get the winning bid on her naughty parts. They'd make fine adornments for my fireplace mantle. grin.


----------



## paperview

Doonsbury strip, circa 2005:

Short version: *After Mike and a friend have discussed the casualties of the Iraq war, they wonder if the dead cause any anguish in the President. *

*The last panel shows voices coming from the White House in the night. Laura asks, “What’s wrong, dear?” and Bush answers, “It’s the stem cells. I hear their cries."*

* 



*


----------



## tinydancer

Wow. Just wow. I think I want to bazooka barf. 

"We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact "

Dr. Nucatola -Senior Director of Medical Services at Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood doctor caught on video discussing sale of fetus organs Daily Mail Online


----------



## paperview

Jusawful that women can donate something that would otherwise be incinerated -- that can go on to save and improve others lives.

Just awful. 

No Planned Parenthood Is Not Selling Aborted Fetal Body Parts


 "Except that, as Planned Parenthood told The Hill, its affiliates “can legally receive reimbursement from a tissue donation procedure for the ‘additional expenses related tissue donation, which can vary based on individual circumstance,’ but it does not go to staff members or providers.” These “additional expenses” might be the $10-30 it costs to transport the tissue being donated, which Planned Parenthood notes is “standard across the medical field.” And no, the patient donating the tissue doesn’t receive any financial reimbursement either.

In reality, the donation of fetal tissue is no different than any other situation in which a patient might donate tissue to scientific research. No money changes hands, and the donation could help pave the way to any number of medical breakthroughs."


----------



## Carla_Danger

koshergrl said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Here is newsweek.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/after-video...nthood-selling-body-parts-bobby-jindal-353828
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now we have something that's not a wingnut source.
> 
> Interesting tidbits:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The center's leader, David Daleiden, has written anti-abortion literature for* The Weekly Standard *and is referenced on the pro-life website of Jill Stanek. Files uploaded by Daleiden to Scribd include "Prayers for the day," which Daleiden describes as "one way to structure your prayer life throughout the day that some people may find helpful."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they're reporting on something put forth by a wingnut. Ok...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tissue donation is different than the harvesting of human organs for sale, though some do consider the two equally controversial, as in the case of Daleiden's organization. In the video,* which has been edited*, Nucatola discusses body parts and tissue as they are needed for research. "We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact," she is heard saying, though due to editing, the context is not entirely clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds horrible in its flippancy, can't deny that. Illegal, though...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *At no point in the video does Nucatola say Planned Parenthood actually sells body parts, fetal or otherwise*, though the center has claimed Planned Parenthood is involved in the "illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts." *Similarly, she does not admit to selling tissue, either personally or through the organization*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood has rejected Daleiden's claims and video. Eric Ferrero, the organization's vice president of communications, offered this statement:
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.
> 
> A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So PP has no problem giving a response, but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daleiden didn't respond to _Newsweek's _request for comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basically Jindall is grandstanding. This will go away after the election if not sooner. Mark my words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking he may have staged this.
> 
> He was unusually fast on the draw, if you ask me--!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many weird pro-baby killing lies can you tell in one day?
> 
> You started out pretending the video was from 2000.
> 
> Then you pretended it was heavily edited.
> 
> Now you're pretending it's a conspiracy?
> 
> What a wacko. Of all the things to lie through your teeth to support...
Click to expand...




Do you feel better after calling several posters, "baby killers?"

Strange, the only person I've ever known personally to have an abortion, was a republican.


----------



## depotoo

Listen to words spoken of Margaret Sanger


----------



## paperview

Carla_Danger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Here is newsweek.
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/after-video...nthood-selling-body-parts-bobby-jindal-353828
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now we have something that's not a wingnut source.
> 
> Interesting tidbits:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The center's leader, David Daleiden, has written anti-abortion literature for* The Weekly Standard *and is referenced on the pro-life website of Jill Stanek. Files uploaded by Daleiden to Scribd include "Prayers for the day," which Daleiden describes as "one way to structure your prayer life throughout the day that some people may find helpful."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they're reporting on something put forth by a wingnut. Ok...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tissue donation is different than the harvesting of human organs for sale, though some do consider the two equally controversial, as in the case of Daleiden's organization. In the video,* which has been edited*, Nucatola discusses body parts and tissue as they are needed for research. "We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact," she is heard saying, though due to editing, the context is not entirely clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds horrible in its flippancy, can't deny that. Illegal, though...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *At no point in the video does Nucatola say Planned Parenthood actually sells body parts, fetal or otherwise*, though the center has claimed Planned Parenthood is involved in the "illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts." *Similarly, she does not admit to selling tissue, either personally or through the organization*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood has rejected Daleiden's claims and video. Eric Ferrero, the organization's vice president of communications, offered this statement:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So PP has no problem giving a response, but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daleiden didn't respond to _Newsweek's _request for comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Basically Jindall is grandstanding. This will go away after the election if not sooner. Mark my words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking he may have staged this.
> 
> He was unusually fast on the draw, if you ask me--!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many weird pro-baby killing lies can you tell in one day?
> 
> You started out pretending the video was from 2000.
> 
> Then you pretended it was heavily edited.
> 
> Now you're pretending it's a conspiracy?
> 
> What a wacko. Of all the things to lie through your teeth to support...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel better after calling several posters, "baby killers?"
> 
> Strange, the only person I've ever known personally to have an abortion, was a republican.
Click to expand...

It's like porn for them.

I swear....


----------



## toxicmedia

JGalt said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".
> 
> Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.
> 
> 
> 
> The right used these issues as wedge issues in the past.  Now that the nation has decided the Democrats are right, they are going to try to ignore them.  Why should Walker be permitted to not tell us what he will do on these two issues?  He has advanced draconian anti-abortion legislation in his state; laws that treat women like children.  Those actions are entirely relevant to whether or not he should get a person's vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's "draconian" about having an expectant mother to have an ultra-sound before having an abortion? Is defunding an organization started by a self-admitted racist who sought to reduce the population of blacks "draconian"? And how does any bill Walker passed treat woman like "children"? His own Lt. Governor is a woman, are you saying Walker hates women? His concealed carry law gives women the same right to defend themselves, as men. Besides, what difference does it make what he does? You're not going to vote for him or any other Republican, you're going to waste your vote on "Hillary/Sanders/Biden/Insert Communist of your choice here."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was one of the provisions.  The law that requires that doctors have admitting privileges is absolutely designed to make it more difficult for women to have a perfectly legal procedure.  There is no reason for this law other than to interfere with the right of a woman to have access to abortion.  There is no medical reason to require an ultrasound. None.  It is a law that suggests that women are really not aware of what the are doing when they decide to have an abortion.  It is a violation of their rights to force them to undergo any kind of medical procedure.  As for the idiotic comments about guns, was it unlawful from women to carry a concealed weapon before while it was legal for men?  What a moronic example.  And your comments about Planned parenthood mimic the same lies that other of your ilk spread.  I have voted for Republicans.. for the US Senate, for Congress and for Governor of my state.  I will not vote for Walker because of his far right views; views that are out of touch with the American public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know how much of that is pandering to idiot righties...but the anti abortion issue, above all others, is rank with hysteria and ignorance. And unusually enough, not from both sides. It's a rare example of righties being wrong about everything on one issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are not anti-abortion. While we believe abortion is basically the murder of an unborn human being, there are special cases where abortion is justified.
> 
> Conservatives mainly have an issue with taxpayer-funded abortions, or the forcing of religious-based medical facilities to perform them.
> 
> We also believe it's up to each individual state to define abortion policies, not one broad policy dictated by the federal government. After all, abortion is a violation of that unborn person's Constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sadly, those on the left consider an unborn child to be no more than a "growth" which can be removed and tossed in a trash can.
Click to expand...

Murder is an unlawful act. Aborting a first or second trimester fetus isn't illegal, so it's not murder. I am very much in favor of killing first and second trimester babies upon demand by the mother without regard for the wishes of the father.

Conservatives only look for public funding within an abortion to meddle and dictate what a woman can. or can't do with their bodies because they've decided God thinks it wrong.

Conservatives use state's rights as an excuse to meddle and impose religious law.


----------



## Carla_Danger

depotoo said:


> Listen to words spoken of Margaret Sanger





Do you ever even bother to check out your sources?

Visit My "PRO-New World Order" Blog At: drlapaglia.blogspot.com


----------



## Carla_Danger

paperview said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now we have something that's not a wingnut source.
> 
> Interesting tidbits:
> 
> So they're reporting on something put forth by a wingnut. Ok...
> 
> This sounds horrible in its flippancy, can't deny that. Illegal, though...?
> 
> So PP has no problem giving a response, but...
> 
> 
> 
> Basically Jindall is grandstanding. This will go away after the election if not sooner. Mark my words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking he may have staged this.
> 
> He was unusually fast on the draw, if you ask me--!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many weird pro-baby killing lies can you tell in one day?
> 
> You started out pretending the video was from 2000.
> 
> Then you pretended it was heavily edited.
> 
> Now you're pretending it's a conspiracy?
> 
> What a wacko. Of all the things to lie through your teeth to support...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel better after calling several posters, "baby killers?"
> 
> Strange, the only person I've ever known personally to have an abortion, was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like porn for them.
> 
> I swear....
Click to expand...




These crotch sniffers can't seem to keep their nose out of other peoples business.


----------



## UllysesS.Archer

paperview said:


> Jusawful that women can donate something that would otherwise be incinerated -- that can go on to save and improve others lives.
> 
> Just awful.
> 
> No Planned Parenthood Is Not Selling Aborted Fetal Body Parts
> 
> 
> "Except that, as Planned Parenthood told The Hill, its affiliates “can legally receive reimbursement from a tissue donation procedure for the ‘additional expenses related tissue donation, which can vary based on individual circumstance,’ but it does not go to staff members or providers.” These “additional expenses” might be the $10-30 it costs to transport the tissue being donated, which Planned Parenthood notes is “standard across the medical field.” And no, the patient donating the tissue doesn’t receive any financial reimbursement either.
> 
> In reality, the donation of fetal tissue is no different than any other situation in which a patient might donate tissue to scientific research. No money changes hands, and the donation could help pave the way to any number of medical breakthroughs."


except that this patient had no say in whether or not they wanted to donate their body parts.

So are you an organ donor? If so, what's your blood type?


----------



## depotoo

One Minute News - British Path 
Honey, you need to check out yours.  I have taken the time to read actual scanned copies of her Birth Control Review, her documented speeches, film clips of her interviews.
Try the above  link for one.  And you cannot question its authenticity in any way.  From the link, under the video clip of Margaret Sanger Slee-
Dorchester Hotel, London. Mrs Margaret Slee, President of America's planned Parenthood Federation is interviewed by Pathe's John Parsons.

CU Mrs Slee drinking a cup of tea. CU Mrs Slee chatting to JP about her theory that women in starving developing countries should have no more babies for 10 years. (nat sound).

Also check out about the last 10 minutes of her interview with Mike Wallace at this youtube video#
the first part is about her basic hate of the Catholic church, the last 10 or sois about how cruel it is to have 'diseased' babies, products of those in prisons, etc.






Carla_Danger said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen to words spoken of Margaret Sanger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever even bother to check out your sources?
> 
> Visit My "PRO-New World Order" Blog At: drlapaglia.blogspot.com
Click to expand...


----------



## depotoo

Now that is simply hilarious.





Carla_Danger said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically Jindall is grandstanding. This will go away after the election if not sooner. Mark my words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking he may have staged this.
> 
> He was unusually fast on the draw, if you ask me--!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many weird pro-baby killing lies can you tell in one day?
> 
> You started out pretending the video was from 2000.
> 
> Then you pretended it was heavily edited.
> 
> Now you're pretending it's a conspiracy?
> 
> What a wacko. Of all the things to lie through your teeth to support...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel better after calling several posters, "baby killers?"
> 
> Strange, the only person I've ever known personally to have an abortion, was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like porn for them.
> 
> I swear....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These crotch sniffers can't seem to keep their nose out of other peoples business.
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

paperview said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now we have something that's not a wingnut source.
> 
> Interesting tidbits:
> 
> So they're reporting on something put forth by a wingnut. Ok...
> 
> This sounds horrible in its flippancy, can't deny that. Illegal, though...?
> 
> So PP has no problem giving a response, but...
> 
> 
> 
> Basically Jindall is grandstanding. This will go away after the election if not sooner. Mark my words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm thinking he may have staged this.
> 
> He was unusually fast on the draw, if you ask me--!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many weird pro-baby killing lies can you tell in one day?
> 
> You started out pretending the video was from 2000.
> 
> Then you pretended it was heavily edited.
> 
> Now you're pretending it's a conspiracy?
> 
> What a wacko. Of all the things to lie through your teeth to support...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel better after calling several posters, "baby killers?"
> 
> Strange, the only person I've ever known personally to have an abortion, was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's like porn for them.
> 
> I swear....
Click to expand...

"baby killers" and "shove it down our throats"....They get orgasms from those words.


----------



## MathewSmith

An undercover video  shows Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how her organization sells the body parts of aborted unborn children and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions – a felony punishable by imprisonment – to harvest intact body parts.

Top abortionist confesses I sell dead babies

We are  becoming a large factory that exports evil around the world.  I wonder,  how many of her own children she aborted and sold off. Planned Parenthood has been doing this horrific practice for about the past 10 years that I know of. Do you know that they often teach that the movement in the womb is just involuntary actions of a lump of cells caused by random electrical activity?


----------



## gipper

Sick.  Very sick.

In a sane nation, Planned Parenthood would be shut down and its managers imprisoned.

I wonder how much money PP gives to the D party for protection.


----------



## MisterBeale

Wow.  Wish I hadn't watched that.  Gives a whole new meaning to the term, "Merchants of Death."


----------



## LoneLaugher

Already 6 threads on this. How did you miss the memo for so long, Scoop? 

Not selling body parts. Try and learn something.


----------



## LoneLaugher

MisterBeale said:


> Wow.  Wish I hadn't watched that.  Gives a whole new meaning to the term, "Merchants of Death."



Yeah.....if you are gullible and believe anything you are told.


----------



## strollingbones

youtube dead babies alice cooper - - Yahoo Search Results


----------



## gipper

Asclepias said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs
> 
> 
> 
> I dont doubt that its true. I'm asking about Sanger.
Click to expand...

Sanger was a eugenicist. She made that clear.  Do the research.

It is worse than just Sanger, see the comments by a crazed Supreme Court justice.  

_In a 2009 interview for the New York Times Magazine, Ginsburg said the following: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Abortion eugenics and Ruth Bader Ginsburg_


----------



## MisterBeale

LoneLaugher said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Wish I hadn't watched that.  Gives a whole new meaning to the term, "Merchants of Death."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....if you are gullible and believe anything you are told.
Click to expand...


I watched the video, it seemed pretty self explanatory.  Link me to another thread or another source, I'm open minded.


----------



## LoneLaugher

MisterBeale said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Wish I hadn't watched that.  Gives a whole new meaning to the term, "Merchants of Death."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....if you are gullible and believe anything you are told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the video, it seemed pretty self explanatory.  Link me to another thread or another source, I'm open minded.
Click to expand...


Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video


----------



## JoeB131

I watched this video which was heavily edited to the point where you really didn't get the context, and you really can't tell what she was referring to.  

She also had a glass of wine in front of her, and I have to wonder if she was a bit schnockered.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.



Awesome. Do you have the video without the editing?  Not this video with select bits taken out of context where it sounds like lab costs that PP pays a profits.  

No ones making any money for a $30 tissue sample.


----------



## MisterBeale

LoneLaugher said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Wish I hadn't watched that.  Gives a whole new meaning to the term, "Merchants of Death."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....if you are gullible and believe anything you are told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the video, it seemed pretty self explanatory.  Link me to another thread or another source, I'm open minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video
Click to expand...


Thanks.  I did have my suspicions that something was off when the price was quoted as,



> Nucatola replies, “You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100, depending on the facility and what’s involved.” The fake rep then clarifies, “The $30 to $100 price range, that’s per specimen that we’re talking about, right?” Nucatola answers, “Per specimen. Yes.”


Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video

In the free market, I was pretty certain stem cells go for a much higher cost to researchers than that.  Something definitely did seem to be amiss.  It makes much more sense that this was the cost for handling donations.

Still, we must keep in mind, this doesn't make what planned parenthood is doing exactly ethically right or morally proper.  However, it's up to each flock to keep their own I suppose.  As long as they stay away from minor girls and get no government funding they can do their evil in their own little corner of the world.  This is America, right?


----------



## JoeB131

UllysesS.Archer said:


> except that this patient had no say in whether or not they wanted to donate their body parts.
> 
> So are you an organ donor? If so, what's your blood type?



fetuses aren't people, and the women do sign off on the donations... 

Argument fail.


----------



## 2aguy

paperview said:


> Jusawful that women can donate something that would otherwise be incinerated -- that can go on to save and improve others lives.
> 
> Just awful.
> 
> No Planned Parenthood Is Not Selling Aborted Fetal Body Parts
> 
> 
> "Except that, as Planned Parenthood told The Hill, its affiliates “can legally receive reimbursement from a tissue donation procedure for the ‘additional expenses related tissue donation, which can vary based on individual circumstance,’ but it does not go to staff members or providers.” These “additional expenses” might be the $10-30 it costs to transport the tissue being donated, which Planned Parenthood notes is “standard across the medical field.” And no, the patient donating the tissue doesn’t receive any financial reimbursement either.
> 
> In reality, the donation of fetal tissue is no different than any other situation in which a patient might donate tissue to scientific research. No money changes hands, and the donation could help pave the way to any number of medical breakthroughs."




Yes...and a lie.....the company that takes the murdered baby parts picks up the remains without cost.  They are killing babies and selling their body parts....what part of that is too hard for you morons to understand?


----------



## LoneLaugher

MisterBeale said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Wish I hadn't watched that.  Gives a whole new meaning to the term, "Merchants of Death."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....if you are gullible and believe anything you are told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the video, it seemed pretty self explanatory.  Link me to another thread or another source, I'm open minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I did have my suspicions that something was off when the price was quoted as,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucatola replies, “You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100, depending on the facility and what’s involved.” The fake rep then clarifies, “The $30 to $100 price range, that’s per specimen that we’re talking about, right?” Nucatola answers, “Per specimen. Yes.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video
> 
> In the free market, I was pretty certain stem cells go for a much higher cost to researchers than that.  Something definitely did seem to be amiss.  It makes much more sense that this was the cost for handling donations.
> 
> Still, we must keep in mind, this doesn't make what planned parenthood is doing exactly ethically right or morally proper.  However, it's up to each flock to keep their own I suppose.  As long as they stay away from minor girls and get no government funding they can do their evil in their own little corner of the world.  This is America, right?
Click to expand...


What they are doing IS ethically right. According to MY moral compass, it is also "proper". 

What isn't ethical nor moral is the fucking hit job video and the way it has been shoved through the echo chamber.


----------



## idb

I'm not watching the video.
Does she really say "I sell dead babies"?!
That's just sick!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

2aguy said:


> E]
> Yes...and a lie.....the company that takes the murdered baby parts picks up the remains without cost.  They are killing babies and selling their body parts....what part of that is too hard for you morons to understand?



what was the name and date of birth  of "the baby" killed ...?* so dramatic and so phony.....so dishonest and hypocritical*




*Planned Parenthood slams heavily edited video that falsely shows tissue donation as sale of body parts*
Planned Parenthood said on Tuesday a secretly recorded video that surfaced on the Internet falsely portrayed the reproductive health group’s participation in the sale of tissue and body parts from aborted fetuses.


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> E]
> Yes...and a lie.....the company that takes the murdered baby parts picks up the remains without cost.  They are killing babies and selling their body parts....what part of that is too hard for you morons to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what was the name and date of birth  of "the baby" killed ...?* so dramatic and so phony.....so dishonest and hypocritical*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood slams heavily edited video that falsely shows tissue donation as sale of body parts*
> Planned Parenthood said on Tuesday a secretly recorded video that surfaced on the Internet falsely portrayed the reproductive health group’s participation in the sale of tissue and body parts from aborted fetuses.
Click to expand...



They kill babies and sell their body parts..............


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> E]
> Yes...and a lie.....the company that takes the murdered baby parts picks up the remains without cost.  They are killing babies and selling their body parts....what part of that is too hard for you morons to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what was the name and date of birth  of "the baby" killed ...?* so dramatic and so phony.....so dishonest and hypocritical*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood slams heavily edited video that falsely shows tissue donation as sale of body parts*
> Planned Parenthood said on Tuesday a secretly recorded video that surfaced on the Internet falsely portrayed the reproductive health group’s participation in the sale of tissue and body parts from aborted fetuses.
Click to expand...



Yes...they have released the 3 hour video...

Planned Parenthood responds Nucatola s just talking about reimbursements Update Jindal orders LA probe halt to PP license Update Unedited 3-hour video added Hot Air

*Update*: Part of Planned Parenthood’s gripe is that the Center for Medical Progress published “a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape.” News organizations do this all the time, of course, but if you want to see the whole almost-3-hour lunch, CMP has it available for viewing:


----------



## 2aguy

They kill babies and sell the parts....

It’s not illegal to _donate_ tissue, but the sale of it is definitely illegal. The costs to which Ferraro alludes would not apply in abortions, since that is a paid-for procedure by the mother. Transportation costs would almost certainly not apply on a body-part basis either, especially with the wide disparities of price noted by PP’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola in the video.


The context of the video was clearly not reimbursement for transportation of random tissue. Nucatola talks extensively about the demand for specific body parts in relation to _price_. “A lot of people want liver,” Nucatola states, and then explains how they train their staff to perform these abortions so that PP clinics can harvest organs to _meet specific demand, _and then make the sale. At one point, Nucatola even talks about body parts being on a “menu.”


Besides, if this was all business as usual, why does Nucatola discuss the strategic policies of the corporate office to have the affiliates front these sales? The reporter posing as a buyer asks Nucatola why he can’t just coordinate the sales with the national office. “We have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,” and that their lawyers consider it “too touchy” for the national office. “But I will tell you that behind these closed doors,” Nucatola explains further, “these conversations are happening with the affiliates.”


----------



## 2aguy

Is anyone surprised that it has reached this point.........?  When you kill babies for convenience, lying about what they are to do it, is is any wonder that they just become a commodity.....that is the end result of socialism....you are simply a part in the machine...a very disposable part of that machine......


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Yes...and a lie.....the company that takes the murdered baby parts picks up the remains without cost. They are killing babies and selling their body parts....what part of that is too hard for you morons to understand?



So they are getting a whopping $30.00 for a tissue sample, and you think this is a big business or something?  

Fetuses aren't babies, and if they are performing an abortion at 20 weeks, it's usually because the fetus is deformed.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Is anyone surprised that it has reached this point.........? When you kill babies for convenience, lying about what they are to do it, is is any wonder that they just become a commodity.....that is the end result of socialism....you are simply a part in the machine...a very disposable part of that machine......



again, your whole premise falls apart when you use the word 'baby' to describe a fetus.  

they aren't the same thing in terms of science, the law or even religion.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome. Do you have the video without the editing?  Not this video with select bits taken out of context where it sounds like lab costs that PP pays a profits.
> 
> No ones making any money for a $30 tissue sample.
Click to expand...


Dry up,old man. You have no credibility,none, zilch, you just spew nonsense and expect to be taken at face value. Oh, and if you support abortion you're just as guilty as the one murdering the innocents. That goes for any of you


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> It’s not illegal to _donate_ tissue, but the sale of it is definitely illegal. The costs to which Ferraro alludes would not apply in abortions, since that is a paid-for procedure by the mother. Transportation costs would almost certainly not apply on a body-part basis either, especially with the wide disparities of price noted by PP’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola in the video.



I know the sciency stuff eludes you, Cleetus, but there is an expense involved in transporting tissues. The Tissues have to be packaged, preserved and delivered to the lab that is going to use them.  And yes, some tissues are more delicate than others.  

We actually had the debate on this 25 years ago when Bill Clinton lifted the ban on fetal tissue research back in 1993.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Dry up,old man. You have no credibility,none, zilch, you just spew nonsense and expect to be taken at face value. Oh, and if you support abortion you're just as guilty as the one murdering the innocents. That goes for any of you



As long as women make really bad relationship choices, we are always going to have abortion. 

Period.  

Now, if your side was serious about reducing the number of abortions, instead of just expressing your superstition and misogyny, there are ways to get there.  

Improved sex education and birth control without any bullshit about abstinence.   

Paid Family and Medical Leave. 

Universal Health Care 

That's what the Europeans do, and they have only half the number of abortions per capita that we have. 

Until you have that discussion, abortion is just how the Plutocrats keep stupid people like you angry while they continue to steal the Middle Class away from you.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> *Update*: Part of Planned Parenthood’s gripe is that the Center for Medical Progress published “a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape.” News organizations do this all the time, of course, but if you want to see the whole almost-3-hour lunch, CMP has it available for viewing:



And when news organizations edit something dishonestly, like they did with Zimmerman, your side is the first to scream bloody murder over it.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dry up,old man. You have no credibility,none, zilch, you just spew nonsense and expect to be taken at face value. Oh, and if you support abortion you're just as guilty as the one murdering the innocents. That goes for any of you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as women make really bad relationship choices, we are always going to have abortion.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Now, if your side was serious about reducing the number of abortions, instead of just expressing your superstition and misogyny, there are ways to get there.
> 
> Improved sex education and birth control without any bullshit about abstinence.
> 
> Paid Family and Medical Leave.
> 
> Universal Health Care
> 
> That's what the Europeans do, and they have only half the number of abortions per capita that we have.
> 
> Until you have that discussion, abortion is just how the Plutocrats keep stupid people like you angry while they continue to steal the Middle Class away from you.
Click to expand...


STFU old man. You support it, you own it


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> STFU old man. You support it, you own it



actually, I used to be one of you wingnuts who got all upset about this. 

Until I realized that Roe V. Wade was voted for by Republican justices (5 of the 7 who voted for it were appointed by Nixon and Ike) and maintained by Republican Justices (half the Republican Appointees since 1973 have affirmed Roe.) 

I'm really sorry you are far too stupid to realize when you are being played.  But religious people tend to be pretty gullible to start with.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> STFU old man. You support it, you own it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, I used to be one of you wingnuts who got all upset about this.
> 
> Until I realized that Roe V. Wade was voted for by Republican justices (5 of the 7 who voted for it were appointed by Nixon and Ike) and maintained by Republican Justices (half the Republican Appointees since 1973 have affirmed Roe.)
> 
> I'm really sorry you are far too stupid to realize when you are being played.  But religious people tend to be pretty gullible to start with.
Click to expand...


Save your BS, old man. Nobody buys it. You support it, you own it. Millions murdered, sad, sad, sad. And YOU are part of it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*The video is a political hatchet job carried out and paid for by Wing Nut organizations affiliated with an organization created by  the famous humanitarian William Casey head of the CIA*

*If there are babies getting killed for profit can you provide the Baby's name and date of birth ......*

Lets take a look at the stalwarts who produced this video...I think the video was done on behalf of Bobby Jindal...its should carry a statement at the end "this video approved by Bobby Jindal

[William Casey is a former head of the CIA responsible for any number of murders assassinations and other wet affairs....]

*Manhattan Institute | Center for Medical Progress*

The* Manhattan Institute*(MI) is a right-wing501(c) (3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 *by William J. Casey, *who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director.[1]It is an associate member of the State Policy Network.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Save your BS, old man. Nobody buys it. You support it, you own it. Millions murdered, sad, sad, sad. And YOU are part of it.



Yup, i was going to go out this afternoon and kidnap some women and force abortions on them...

Oh, wait.  I don't need to do that.  They walk to the abortion clinics on their own and have abortions. 

When you shitheads start talking about putting women in jail for having abortions, then I'll take you seriously.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your BS, old man. Nobody buys it. You support it, you own it. Millions murdered, sad, sad, sad. And YOU are part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, i was going to go out this afternoon and kidnap some women and force abortions on them...
> 
> Oh, wait.  I don't need to do that.  They walk to the abortion clinics on their own and have abortions.
> 
> When you shitheads start talking about putting women in jail for having abortions, then I'll take you seriously.
Click to expand...


Go away, you're nothing but an annoying old lunatic. That's it, nothing more and nothing less. And here you thought everyone waited with baited breath for your next comment. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## paperview

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your BS, old man. Nobody buys it. You support it, you own it. Millions murdered, sad, sad, sad. And YOU are part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, i was going to go out this afternoon and kidnap some women and force abortions on them...
> 
> Oh, wait.  I don't need to do that.  They walk to the abortion clinics on their own and have abortions.
> 
> When you shitheads start talking about putting women in jail for having abortions, then I'll take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go away, you're nothing but an annoying old lunatic. That's it, nothing more and nothing less. And here you thought everyone waited with baited breath for your next comment. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...

 ^ Projection on stilts.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Go away, you're nothing but an annoying old lunatic. That's it, nothing more and nothing less. And here you thought everyone waited with baited breath for your next comment. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



I think everyone is enjoying watching me spank you like red-headed stepchild.  

I know I'm enjoying the shit out of it.


----------



## JoeB131

paperview said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your BS, old man. Nobody buys it. You support it, you own it. Millions murdered, sad, sad, sad. And YOU are part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, i was going to go out this afternoon and kidnap some women and force abortions on them...
> 
> Oh, wait.  I don't need to do that.  They walk to the abortion clinics on their own and have abortions.
> 
> When you shitheads start talking about putting women in jail for having abortions, then I'll take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go away, you're nothing but an annoying old lunatic. That's it, nothing more and nothing less. And here you thought everyone waited with baited breath for your next comment. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ Projection on stilts.
Click to expand...


I actually feel bad for FatIrishSow, because obviously no one taught her how to debate an issue. 

Her method seems to be this. 

Repeat whatever shit she heard on hate radio, and when someone debunks it by doing even the tiniest modicum of research, whine that they are a bunch of meanyheads who are picking on her.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your BS, old man. Nobody buys it. You support it, you own it. Millions murdered, sad, sad, sad. And YOU are part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, i was going to go out this afternoon and kidnap some women and force abortions on them...
> 
> Oh, wait.  I don't need to do that.  They walk to the abortion clinics on their own and have abortions.
> 
> When you shitheads start talking about putting women in jail for having abortions, then I'll take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go away, you're nothing but an annoying old lunatic. That's it, nothing more and nothing less. And here you thought everyone waited with baited breath for your next comment. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ Projection on stilts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually feel bad for FatIrishSow, because obviously no one taught her how to debate an issue.
> 
> Her method seems to be this.
> 
> Repeat whatever shit she heard on hate radio, and when someone debunks it by doing even the tiniest modicum of research, whine that they are a bunch of meanyheads who are picking on her.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

Really, you seem to get very excited whenever I spank you for all to see. 

It's like you have some kind of masochistic thing going on.. 






"Beat me, Hurt me, Make me write bad checks!"


----------



## koshergrl

And of course as a voluntary measure, abortion never works to eliminate undesirables because most women just aren't that interested in killing their babies. So you know what the next step is.....think China and dragging pregnant women, screaming, to the abbatoirs.


----------



## hadit

BlindBoo said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> African slaves were once considered less human than their white counterparts.  Did it make them less human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the pre-civil war South yes it did legally.
Click to expand...

But not biologically.  They were fully human, no matter what white people said about them.  Calling a donkey's tail a leg does not give the donkey 5 legs.


----------



## hadit

Coyote said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> African slaves were once considered less human than their white counterparts.  Did it make them less human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Are you going to grant personhood to sperm now?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone do that?  Sperm is part of a person.  A developing baby is not.  Surely you can see the difference, or are you just trying to cloud the issue with hyperbole?


----------



## SassyIrishLass




----------



## Muhammed

Coyote said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perpetual pregnancy is vile.
Click to expand...

"Perpetual pregnancy" 


Coyote said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perpetual pregnancy is vile.
Click to expand...

Human Biology 101 says you are full of shit.


----------



## depotoo

The Center for Medical Progress
Here, go watch the full videos and see the written transcripts. 
In 2011, more 330,000 abortions performed by PP.
A fetus has more than one body part, varying in price from  $30-$100 for each.  Let's assume just one body part per fetus at $30 each, realizing not all fetuses had viable parts and others had multiple.   That would bring in an additional $9.9 million per year for PP.

Sick, sick, sick.



JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Update*: Part of Planned Parenthood’s gripe is that the Center for Medical Progress published “a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape.” News organizations do this all the time, of course, but if you want to see the whole almost-3-hour lunch, CMP has it available for viewing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when news organizations edit something dishonestly, like they did with Zimmerman, your side is the first to scream bloody murder over it.
Click to expand...


----------



## depotoo

JoeB131 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your BS, old man. Nobody buys it. You support it, you own it. Millions murdered, sad, sad, sad. And YOU are part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, i was going to go out this afternoon and kidnap some women and force abortions on them...
> 
> Oh, wait.  I don't need to do that.  They walk to the abortion clinics on their own and have abortions.
> 
> When you shitheads start talking about putting women in jail for having abortions, then I'll take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go away, you're nothing but an annoying old lunatic. That's it, nothing more and nothing less. And here you thought everyone waited with baited breath for your next comment. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ Projection on stilts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually feel bad for FatIrishSow, because obviously no one taught her how to debate an issue.
> 
> Her method seems to be this.
> 
> Repeat whatever shit she heard on hate radio, and when someone debunks it by doing even the tiniest modicum of research, whine that they are a bunch of meanyheads who are picking on her.
Click to expand...

Yours- run with talking points never checking for facts.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

depotoo said:


> The Center for Medical Progress
> Here, go watch the full videos and see the written transcripts.
> In 2011, more 330,000 abortions performed by PP.
> A fetus has more than one body part, varying in price fro  $30-$100 for each.  Let's assume just one body part per fetus at $30 each, realizing not all fetuses had viable parts and others had multiple.   That would bring in an additional $9.9 million per year for PP.
> 
> Sick, sick, sick.
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Update*: Part of Planned Parenthood’s gripe is that the Center for Medical Progress published “a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape.” News organizations do this all the time, of course, but if you want to see the whole almost-3-hour lunch, CMP has it available for viewing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And when news organizations edit something dishonestly, like they did with Zimmerman, your side is the first to scream bloody murder over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## SassyIrishLass

depotoo said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Save your BS, old man. Nobody buys it. You support it, you own it. Millions murdered, sad, sad, sad. And YOU are part of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, i was going to go out this afternoon and kidnap some women and force abortions on them...
> 
> Oh, wait.  I don't need to do that.  They walk to the abortion clinics on their own and have abortions.
> 
> When you shitheads start talking about putting women in jail for having abortions, then I'll take you seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go away, you're nothing but an annoying old lunatic. That's it, nothing more and nothing less. And here you thought everyone waited with baited breath for your next comment. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ Projection on stilts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually feel bad for FatIrishSow, because obviously no one taught her how to debate an issue.
> 
> Her method seems to be this.
> 
> Repeat whatever shit she heard on hate radio, and when someone debunks it by doing even the tiniest modicum of research, whine that they are a bunch of meanyheads who are picking on her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours- run with talking points never checking for facts.
Click to expand...


Joey gets all upset when people don't take him serious.


----------



## SassyIrishLass




----------



## UllysesS.Archer

JoeB131 said:


> UllysesS.Archer said:
> 
> 
> 
> except that this patient had no say in whether or not they wanted to donate their body parts.
> 
> So are you an organ donor? If so, what's your blood type?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fetuses aren't people, and the women do sign off on the donations...
> 
> Argument fail.
Click to expand...

humanity fail.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

We have a new James O'Keefe heavily edited video....*the new O'Keefe is edited in order to frame Planned Parenthood with "selling baby parts"...it is a smear and it is also coordinated with the Jindal campaign......*...

*Origins:* On 14 July 2015, The Center for Medical Progress posted a video purportedly showing a leading Planned Parenthood doctor, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, admitting to a pair of actors pretending to be buyers from a human biologics company that Planned Parenthood sells organs from aborted fetuses: 
.............
it opens with a news report and footage of Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt condemning “inappropriate behavior,” presented *in a manner that made Feldt’s statement seem like she was commenting on the current issue even though the quote was actually more than a decade old. [ O'keefe style  creative editing ]*

_When Planned Parenthood faced similar accusations in 2003, Feldt, who was president of the organization from 1996 to 2005 (*and not at any time during the alleged three-year investigation referenced here*), appeared on the ABC show 20/20 to discuss “alleged abuses by private sector tissue and organ procurement companies”_

...the “smoking gun” of the original video occurs at the 12:24:00 mark when *Nucatola states a price of “$30 to $100,” but it’s unclear exactly what she is talking about....... [ O'keefe style  creative editing ]It’s possible that Nucatola is merely outlining the costs (e.g., labor, shipping) of that process, which allows “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”

In a press release issued in response to the video, *Planned Parenthood asserted that this was the case:*
As reported by The Hill, Planned Parenthood released a second statement about the video in which the organization noted that affiliates can legally receive reimbursement for expenses related to tissue donation procedures:
*
“Deborah Nucatela was speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive after stating they wish to donate any tissue after a procedure,” *the organization wrote in a report.

An individual named* David Daleiden *has been widely credited as the “leader” of the Center for Medical Progress. While Daleiden’s online footprint is minimal, a 2009 Claremont University article (penned by fellow conservative activist Chuck Johnson) reported:


James O’Keefe is a friend of David Daleiden’s. O’Keefe and Hannah Giles have been going coast to coast documenting instances of ACORN employees willingly giving advice on how to avoid paying taxes and shielding a would be pimp (running for congress) and a prostitutent from the watchful eye of the law. They’ve brought their investigation to New York City, Washington D.C., and Baltimore.


Read more at Baby Parts for Sale snopes.com*


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...and a lie.....the company that takes the murdered baby parts picks up the remains without cost. They are killing babies and selling their body parts....what part of that is too hard for you morons to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they are getting a whopping $30.00 for a tissue sample, and you think this is a big business or something?
> 
> Fetuses aren't babies, and if they are performing an abortion at 20 weeks, it's usually because the fetus is deformed.
Click to expand...



Well asshole...it isn't a fucking "tissue sample" she said hearts, livers, lungs.......that means a baby...not a zygote, not tissue, a baby human being is killed and then cut up for parts..........


----------



## SassyIrishLass

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...and a lie.....the company that takes the murdered baby parts picks up the remains without cost. They are killing babies and selling their body parts....what part of that is too hard for you morons to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they are getting a whopping $30.00 for a tissue sample, and you think this is a big business or something?
> 
> Fetuses aren't babies, and if they are performing an abortion at 20 weeks, it's usually because the fetus is deformed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well asshole...it isn't a fucking "tissue sample" she said hearts, livers, lungs.......that means a baby...not a zygote, not tissue, a baby human being is killed and then cut up for parts..........
Click to expand...


This nimrod thinks word play will lie it away


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> We have a new James O'Keefe heavily edited video....*the new O'Keefe is edited in order to frame Planned Parenthood with "selling baby parts"...it is a smear and it is also coordinated with the Jindal campaign......*...
> 
> *Origins:* On 14 July 2015, The Center for Medical Progress posted a video purportedly showing a leading Planned Parenthood doctor, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, admitting to a pair of actors pretending to be buyers from a human biologics company that Planned Parenthood sells organs from aborted fetuses:
> .............
> it opens with a news report and footage of Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt condemning “inappropriate behavior,” presented *in a manner that made Feldt’s statement seem like she was commenting on the current issue even though the quote was actually more than a decade old. [ O'keefe style  creative editing ]*
> 
> _When Planned Parenthood faced similar accusations in 2003, Feldt, who was president of the organization from 1996 to 2005 (*and not at any time during the alleged three-year investigation referenced here*), appeared on the ABC show 20/20 to discuss “alleged abuses by private sector tissue and organ procurement companies”_
> 
> ...the “smoking gun” of the original video occurs at the 12:24:00 mark when *Nucatola states a price of “$30 to $100,” but it’s unclear exactly what she is talking about....... [ O'keefe style  creative editing ]It’s possible that Nucatola is merely outlining the costs (e.g., labor, shipping) of that process, which allows “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”
> 
> In a press release issued in response to the video, *Planned Parenthood asserted that this was the case:
> *As reported by The Hill, Planned Parenthood released a second statement about the video in which the organization noted that affiliates can legally receive reimbursement for expenses related to tissue donation procedures:
> *
> “Deborah Nucatela was speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive after stating they wish to donate any tissue after a procedure,” *the organization wrote in a report.
> 
> An individual named* David Daleiden *has been widely credited as the “leader” of the Center for Medical Progress. While Daleiden’s online footprint is minimal, a 2009 Claremont University article (penned by fellow conservative activist Chuck Johnson) reported:
> 
> 
> James O’Keefe is a friend of David Daleiden’s. O’Keefe and Hannah Giles have been going coast to coast documenting instances of ACORN employees willingly giving advice on how to avoid paying taxes and shielding a would be pimp (running for congress) and a prostitutent from the watchful eye of the law. They’ve brought their investigation to New York City, Washington D.C., and Baltimore.
> 
> 
> Read more at Baby Parts for Sale snopes.com*




It’s not illegal to _donate_ tissue, but the sale of it is definitely illegal. The costs to which Ferraro alludes would not apply in abortions, since that is a paid-for procedure by the mother. Transportation costs would almost certainly not apply on a body-part basis either, especially with the wide disparities of price noted by PP’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola in the video.


The context of the video was clearly not reimbursement for transportation of random tissue. Nucatola talks extensively about the demand for specific body parts in relation to _price_. “A lot of people want liver,” Nucatola states, and then explains how they train their staff to perform these abortions so that PP clinics can harvest organs to _meet specific demand, _and then make the sale. At one point, Nucatola even talks about body parts being on a “menu.”


Besides, if this was all business as usual, why does Nucatola discuss the strategic policies of the corporate office to have the affiliates front these sales? The reporter posing as a buyer asks Nucatola why he can’t just coordinate the sales with the national office. “We have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,” and that their lawyers consider it “too touchy” for the national office. “But I will tell you that behind these closed doors,” Nucatola explains further, “these conversations are happening with the affiliates.”


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone surprised that it has reached this point.........? When you kill babies for convenience, lying about what they are to do it, is is any wonder that they just become a commodity.....that is the end result of socialism....you are simply a part in the machine...a very disposable part of that machine......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, your whole premise falls apart when you use the word 'baby' to describe a fetus.
> 
> they aren't the same thing in terms of science, the law or even religion.
Click to expand...



They are selling hearts, lungs, livers and who knows what else......they are killing babies and selling the parts....and this is just what they caught on video...imagine what they are doing that we have yet to find out about.......kermit goznell is going to turn out to not be alone.........


----------



## koshergrl

They alter the procedure in order to accommodate harvest.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Planned Parenthood Anti-abortion group s video twists facts TheHill*

*Planned Parenthood: Anti-abortion group's video twists facts..*fiercely disputes that the conversation was about selling body parts.
*
“Deborah Nucatela was speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive after stating they wish to donate any tissue after a procedure,” the organization wrote in a report prepared by its PR firm.
*


----------



## SassyIrishLass

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Planned Parenthood Anti-abortion group s video twists facts TheHill*
> 
> *Planned Parenthood: Anti-abortion group's video twists facts..*fiercely disputes that the conversation was about selling body parts.
> 
> *“Deborah Nucatela was speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive after stating they wish to donate any tissue after a procedure,” the organization wrote in a report prepared by its PR firm.*



What a fucking lie, the patients received nothing. This has been established


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Planned Parenthood Anti-abortion group s video twists facts TheHill*
> 
> *Planned Parenthood: Anti-abortion group's video twists facts..*fiercely disputes that the conversation was about selling body parts.
> 
> *“Deborah Nucatela was speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive after stating they wish to donate any tissue after a procedure,” the organization wrote in a report prepared by its PR firm.*




They killed babies and sold their hearts, lungs livers......


----------



## Stephanie

wow, we are now no better than animals who sometimes EATS their own young.

we have GONE TO HELL as a Society


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

If someone *"killed babies and sold their hearts , lungs and livers"* that is totally wrong and against the law.......
“Deborah Nucatela was speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive after stating they wish to donate any tissue after a procedure,” the organization wrote in a report prepared by its PR firm.

“The promotional video mischaracterizing Planned Parenthood’s mission and services is made by a long time anti-abortion activist that has used deceptive and unethical video editing, and that has created a fake medical website as well as a fake human tissue website that purports to provide services to stem cell researchers,” the group wrote in a two-page statement.

It also provided several pages of background research about the organization’s use of donated fetal tissue, which it describes as “humanitarian undertaking that hold the potential to cure disease, save lives, and ameliorate suffering.”

The statement explains that Planned Parenthood affiliates can legally receive reimbursement from a tissue donation procedure for the “additional expenses related tissue donation, which can vary based on individual circumstance,”
Do you have the name and dates of birth of the babies ??

*Lets get this straight ...big nut bag James O';Keefe is known for being a sleazy video misinform er...he is behind this video ...*

Romney Invested in a Fetus-Disposal Company -- NYMag


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Stephanie said:


> wow, we are now no better than animals who sometimes EATS their own young.
> 
> we have GONE TO HELL as a Society



Not all of us, but anyone that supports murdering the most innocent of all most certainly has some issues


----------



## Stephanie

SassyIrishLass said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, we are now no better than animals who sometimes EATS their own young.
> 
> we have GONE TO HELL as a Society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not all of us, but anyone that supports murdering the most innocent of all most certainly has some issues
Click to expand...



YEP, I meant to add that. ANYONE who is standing up for this nasty baby killing industry is as scummy as they are. and we know that is the LEFT/the democrat party, Obama , Hillary, etc


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> If someone *"killed babies and sold their hearts , lungs and livers"* that is totally wrong and against the law.......
> “Deborah Nucatela was speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive after stating they wish to donate any tissue after a procedure,” the organization wrote in a report prepared by its PR firm.
> 
> “The promotional video mischaracterizing Planned Parenthood’s mission and services is made by a long time anti-abortion activist that has used deceptive and unethical video editing, and that has created a fake medical website as well as a fake human tissue website that purports to provide services to stem cell researchers,” the group wrote in a two-page statement.
> 
> It also provided several pages of background research about the organization’s use of donated fetal tissue, which it describes as “humanitarian undertaking that hold the potential to cure disease, save lives, and ameliorate suffering.”
> 
> The statement explains that Planned Parenthood affiliates can legally receive reimbursement from a tissue donation procedure for the “additional expenses related tissue donation, which can vary based on individual circumstance,”
> Do you have the name and dates of birth of the babies ??
> 
> *Lets get this straight ...big nut bag James O';Keefe is known for being a sleazy video misinform er...he is behind this video ...*
> 
> Romney Invested in a Fetus-Disposal Company -- NYMag




They killed babies and sold their hearts, livers, lungs...........


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

I am on a list through the Dept of Motor Vehicles in my State so when I die my own organs can be harvested [donated]...............

*In reality, the donation of fetal tissue is no different than any other situation in which a patient might donate tissue to scientific research. No money changes hands, and the donation could help pave the way to any number of medical breakthroughs.*
*No, Planned Parenthood Is Not Selling Aborted Fetal Body Parts*

*The Center for Medical Progress,which describes itself as“a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.” Oddly enough, 10 of the the 11 total tweets made by the group’s Twitter account are from today, while the only two posts on its website seem to be about the Planned Parenthood video. And just like its Twitter account,the group’s Facebook page is only a few months old.*

However,cached Google results reveal that way back in May of 2013, there were quite a few more posts on the group’s website. Trying to click on any of them now, though, brings you to this:
*




*
*[LOL they covered their tracks...bet they lead to James O'Keefe..]*


----------



## Coyote

Muhammed said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perpetual pregnancy is vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Perpetual pregnancy"
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a sample of her quotes:
> Copyright © 2001 Diane S.  Dew  www.dianedew.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Margaret Sanger (1883-1966)
> On blacks, immigrants and indigents:*
> "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born."  Margaret Sanger, _Pivot of Civilization, _ referring to immigrants and poor people
> *On sterilization & racial purification:*
> Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. _Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger_, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
> *On the right of married couples to bear children:*
> Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." _Birth Control Review_, April 1932
> *On the purpose of birth control:*
> The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the_ Birth Control Review_, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
> *On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:*
> "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." _Birth Control Review_, May 1919, p. 12
> 
> *On religious convictions regarding sex outside of marriage:*
> "This book aims to answer the needs expressed in thousands on thousands of letters to me in
> 
> 
> the solution of marriage problems... Knowledge of sex truths frankly and plainly presented cannot possibly injure healthy, normal, young minds. Concealment, suppression, futile attempts to veil the unveilable - these work injury, as they seldom succeed and only render those who indulge in them ridiculous. For myself, I have full confidence in the cleanliness, the open-mindedness, the promise of the younger generation." Margaret Sanger, _ Happiness in Marriage_ (Bretano's, New York, 1927)
> 
> *On the extermination of blacks:*
> "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perpetual pregnancy is vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Human Biology 101 says you are full of shit.
Click to expand...


Human Biology 101 says that is impossible.

Why do you have issues with women controlling their ability to get pregnant or, by extension, being able to enjoy sex on the same level that men do?


----------



## Coyote

hadit said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went and looked at this video
> 
> 
> .....and I am trying to find out what was illegal.  Everything PP discussed was on the up and up.  Also, I don't think this is any different from obtaining organs from a cadaver or organ donor.
> 
> Is it because we are talking about fetus that we should be outraged? Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> African slaves were once considered less human than their white counterparts.  Did it make them less human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Are you going to grant personhood to sperm now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone do that?  Sperm is part of a person.  A developing baby is not.  Surely you can see the difference, or are you just trying to cloud the issue with hyperbole?
Click to expand...


Sorry but a developing baby IS part of a person.  It share's at least one half the DNA with it's host.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

2aguy said:


> They killed babies and sold their hearts, livers, lungs...........


*
Get the information to involve the FBI and authorities...killing babies is against the law...*


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> And of course as a voluntary measure, abortion never works to eliminate undesirables because most women just aren't that interested in killing their babies. So you know what the next step is.....think China and dragging pregnant women, screaming, to the abbatoirs.



Hyperbole much?


----------



## depotoo

Honey, you seem not to realize you are seen by most as a propagandist here, and nothing more.  Your posting style says it all.  Facts, be damned. 





TyroneSlothrop said:


> If someone *"killed babies and sold their hearts , lungs and livers"* that is totally wrong and against the law.......
> “Deborah Nucatela was speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive after stating they wish to donate any tissue after a procedure,” the organization wrote in a report prepared by its PR firm.
> 
> “The promotional video mischaracterizing Planned Parenthood’s mission and services is made by a long time anti-abortion activist that has used deceptive and unethical video editing, and that has created a fake medical website as well as a fake human tissue website that purports to provide services to stem cell researchers,” the group wrote in a two-page statement.
> 
> It also provided several pages of background research about the organization’s use of donated fetal tissue, which it describes as “humanitarian undertaking that hold the potential to cure disease, save lives, and ameliorate suffering.”
> 
> The statement explains that Planned Parenthood affiliates can legally receive reimbursement from a tissue donation procedure for the “additional expenses related tissue donation, which can vary based on individual circumstance,”
> Do you have the name and dates of birth of the babies ??
> 
> *Lets get this straight ...big nut bag James O';Keefe is known for being a sleazy video misinform er...he is behind this video ...*
> 
> Romney Invested in a Fetus-Disposal Company -- NYMag


----------



## depotoo

So does an adult, which is separate from its 'host'.  That qualifies nothing in your argument.





Coyote said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> African slaves were once considered less human than their white counterparts.  Did it make them less human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Are you going to grant personhood to sperm now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone do that?  Sperm is part of a person.  A developing baby is not.  Surely you can see the difference, or are you just trying to cloud the issue with hyperbole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but a developing baby IS part of a person.  It share's at least one half the DNA with it's host.
Click to expand...


----------



## longknife

This is what happens to a society with atheist progressives force their agenda on the rest of us. I beg Sanger and her cohorts are chuckling with glee wherever they are - and I hope it's in the depth of hell where the rest of the PP butchers will end up.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*If you know some of these abortion wing nuts invite them over for some fried chicken....when they show up give them fried eggs,,,if they say "hey this is not fried chicken its fried eggs"...tell them its the same thing ...like a fetus is the same as a baby............*


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And of course as a voluntary measure, abortion never works to eliminate undesirables because most women just aren't that interested in killing their babies. So you know what the next step is.....think China and dragging pregnant women, screaming, to the abbatoirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole much?
Click to expand...

 Yes, I know. It's such a huge leap from changing the procedure in the abortion abbatoirs to accommodate organ harvests without the knowledge of the women undergoing the dangerous procedure...to the thought that those people might actually want to force women they think shouldn't be having children to undergo the procedure.


----------



## depotoo

Honey, since you seem to not know, the vast majority of eggs sold to be eaten have not been fertilized.





TyroneSlothrop said:


> *If you know some of these abortion wing nuts invite them over for some fried chicken....when they show up give them fried eggs,,,if they say "hey this is not fried chicken its fried eggs"...tell them its the same thing ...like a fetus is the same as a baby............*


----------



## Lakhota

Another NaziCon lie exposed.

Sting Video Claims Planned Parenthood Sells Fetal Parts


----------



## koshergrl

Lakhota said:


> Another NaziCon lie exposed.
> 
> Sting Video Claims Planned Parenthood Sells Fetal Parts


 Yes, selling baby parts is a humanitarian effort on the part of PP, lol.

"Aborted pregnancy tissue donation and research are humanitarian undertakings..."
“Undertakings”? _Oh, my_. Perhaps someone needs a new thesaurus, but “undertakings” is exactly the business of Planned Parenthood in the hundreds of thousands a year. That language underscores the hypocrisy of claiming to conduct “humanitarian” activities based on the destruction of human beings. It’s a ghastly and ghoulish argument even if no money changed hands, but especially so when the organization’s top medical officer cooly discusses cash exchanges for intact organs while sipping wine with her lunch. And let’s not forget the dichotomy of claiming that aborted babies are nothing but “clumps of cells” on one hand, and marketing intact organs on the other."

"..
PP: I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they’re a non-profit, they just don’t want to—they want to break even. And *if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that*."

Nice.

"Nucatola’s description of Planned Parenthood training demonstrates a violation of federal law:







 "



"Nucatola describes how she herself violates this law, and how Planned Parenthood trains providers to do so as well:
Buyer: So, I guess cell viability is a concern right? So, some of the intactness of the specimens is a pretty big deal.
PP: Yea, so that’s where we kind of get into an ethical situation, because what I think most providers don’t want to have do, they don’t want- In terms of the steps and the preparation, and getting them to the actual procedure, you know, if you really want an intact specimen, the more dilation, the better. Is the clinic gonna you know, put in another set of laminaria to do something different? I think they’d prefer not to. For example, what I’m dealing with now, if I know what they’re looking for, I’ll just keep it in the back of my mind, and try to at least keep that part intact. But, I generally don’t do extra dilation. I won’t put in an extra set of laminaria, or add an extra day, that’s going to add significant cost of expense to everybody."

"According to Nucatola, Planned Parenthood trains its staff to change the procedures when they need to transfer fetal organs — and whether one considers that a sale or a paid-for donation, that in itself violates federal law. Nucatola’s inadvertent deposition exposes a great deal of wrongdoing. Even the best PR flacks can’t cover this up."

New Planned Parenthood spin Organ harvesting sales a humanitarian undertaking Hot Air


----------



## The Irish Ram

Coyote said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perpetual pregnancy is vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Perpetual pregnancy"
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perpetual pregnancy is vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Human Biology 101 says you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human Biology 101 says that is impossible.
> 
> Why do you have issues with women controlling their ability to get pregnant or, by extension, being able to enjoy sex on the same level that men do?
Click to expand...


Obviously they are *not* controlling their ability to get pregnant, or they wouldn't get pregnant.
And if you can't enjoy sex without an abortion clinic on every corner, you're doing it wrong.
And Muhammed said your perpetual pregnancy argument is full of shit.  How do you twist  that into him having issues with woman enjoying sex?
It's that twisting that Americans are so sick of.  Here is a perfect example:
Trump- some Mexicans crossing the border are bad people.
Liberals- Trump hates all Mexicans.

Muhammed is right.  Bio.101 says you're full of shit.
And If you are perpetually pregnant, no wonder you don't enjoy sex.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*and hey if you know some OCD anti abortionist invite them over for some cookies and milk...when they show up serve them a lump of raw frozen  cookie dough...when they go ..."what the heck is this"...tell them its a cookie same as a an embryo being a person...............*


----------



## toxicmedia

You pro lifers amaze me.

Your argument can be completely destroyed and exposed for the ingnorant hysteria it really is.....

Then like a boomarang, you can just forget that all happened, and relax in your hyperbole of hate.


----------



## koshergrl

toxicmedia said:


> You pro lifers amaze me.
> 
> Your argument can be completely destroyed and exposed for the ingnorant hysteria it really is.....
> 
> Then like a boomarang, you can just forget that all happened, and relax in your hyperbole of hate.


 It hasn't been destroyed. It's not an argument, PP is racketeering. They're putting vulnerable women at risk in order to harvest babies for profit.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

The two main liberal arguments for abortion, 1) It's just a clump of cells and 2) I'm "pro choice", not pro abortion just left the building. Gone, kaput, see you later

*Pro-Aborts: Here Are Two Arguments You Can’t Make Anymore*

Abortion is the highest sacrament in the Church of Liberalism.

The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation. Like the primitive pagan cultures before them, liberalism looks upon the sacred rite of child sacrifice with a deep reverence. The liberal has a cult-like, religious devotion to sacrament of infanticide. Liberals will venerate it for the same reason Catholics venerate the Eucharist and Muslims the Koran — because it is the centerpiece of their worship, the core, the soul of the thing.


Once we understand this, we should not be surprised by the events of these last few days. To the outside observer — someone mercifully unfamiliar with the teachings of the liberal church — it might seem surprising, even remarkable, that the nation’s largest abortion provider was caught on tape selling the dismembered body parts and organs of dead children, and that liberals immediately and passionately defended the practice. The behavior on the part of Planned Parenthood shouldn’t shock us, as I said yesterday, but neither should the nauseating response from the media and various liberal pundits.

I say “response,” but naturally the response from much of the media was nothing but a blaring, deafening silence. Aside from Fox News, most of the cable and network channels dusted off their patented blackout strategy, last employed during the Kermit Gosnell trial, and ignored the scandal completely. In fairness, CNN did have more important things to talk about, like Kylie Jenner’s hairdo.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers and commentators rushed to rescue the damsel Planned Parenthood from the evil clutches of the right wing conspiracy. In a moment of sheer dementia, Slate called the selling of dead baby organs “fluff,” and insisted that the real issue is simply that abortion is kind of “gross” — but no grosser than heart surgery or child birth.

Yes, giving birth to a child is as gross as crushing its skull and hawking its parts for cash.

*Citizens, this is liberalism. Look upon its revolting face and weep.
*
Attention Pro-Aborts Here Are Two Arguments You Can t Make Anymore TheBlaze.com


----------



## SassyIrishLass

toxicmedia said:


> You pro lifers amaze me.
> 
> Your argument can be completely destroyed and exposed for the ingnorant hysteria it really is.....
> 
> Then like a boomarang, you can just forget that all happened, and relax in your hyperbole of hate.



You pro baby murderers make me sick, I can't imagine what has happened to someone in their life that they would ever condone such an evil deed


----------



## toxicmedia

SassyIrishLass said:


> The two main liberal arguments for abortion, 1) It's just a clump of cells and 2) I'm "pro choice", not pro abortion just left the building. Gone, kaput, see you later
> 
> *Pro-Aborts: Here Are Two Arguments You Can’t Make Anymore*
> 
> Abortion is the highest sacrament in the Church of Liberalism.
> 
> The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation. Like the primitive pagan cultures before them, liberalism looks upon the sacred rite of child sacrifice with a deep reverence. The liberal has a cult-like, religious devotion to sacrament of infanticide. Liberals will venerate it for the same reason Catholics venerate the Eucharist and Muslims the Koran — because it is the centerpiece of their worship, the core, the soul of the thing.
> 
> 
> Once we understand this, we should not be surprised by the events of these last few days. To the outside observer — someone mercifully unfamiliar with the teachings of the liberal church — it might seem surprising, even remarkable, that the nation’s largest abortion provider was caught on tape selling the dismembered body parts and organs of dead children, and that liberals immediately and passionately defended the practice. The behavior on the part of Planned Parenthood shouldn’t shock us, as I said yesterday, but neither should the nauseating response from the media and various liberal pundits.
> 
> I say “response,” but naturally the response from much of the media was nothing but a blaring, deafening silence. Aside from Fox News, most of the cable and network channels dusted off their patented blackout strategy, last employed during the Kermit Gosnell trial, and ignored the scandal completely. In fairness, CNN did have more important things to talk about, like Kylie Jenner’s hairdo.
> 
> Meanwhile, liberal bloggers and commentators rushed to rescue the damsel Planned Parenthood from the evil clutches of the right wing conspiracy. In a moment of sheer dementia, Slate called the selling of dead baby organs “fluff,” and insisted that the real issue is simply that abortion is kind of “gross” — but no grosser than heart surgery or child birth.
> 
> Yes, giving birth to a child is as gross as crushing its skull and hawking its parts for cash.
> 
> *Citizens, this is liberalism. Look upon its revolting face and weep.
> *
> Attention Pro-Aborts Here Are Two Arguments You Can t Make Anymore TheBlaze.com


Are there any of yourown words in this post? or are you just spamming?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another NaziCon lie exposed.
> 
> Sting Video Claims Planned Parenthood Sells Fetal Parts
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, selling baby parts is a humanitarian effort on the part of PP, lol.
> 
> "Aborted pregnancy tissue donation and research are humanitarian undertakings..."
> “Undertakings”? _Oh, my_. Perhaps someone needs a new thesaurus, but “undertakings” is exactly the business of Planned Parenthood in the hundreds of thousands a year. That language underscores the hypocrisy of claiming to conduct “humanitarian” activities based on the destruction of human beings. It’s a ghastly and ghoulish argument even if no money changed hands, but especially so when the organization’s top medical officer cooly discusses cash exchanges for intact organs while sipping wine with her lunch. And let’s not forget the dichotomy of claiming that aborted babies are nothing but “clumps of cells” on one hand, and marketing intact organs on the other."
> 
> "..
> PP: I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they’re a non-profit, they just don’t want to—they want to break even. And *if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that*."
> 
> Nice.
> 
> "Nucatola’s description of Planned Parenthood training demonstrates a violation of federal law:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> 
> 
> "Nucatola describes how she herself violates this law, and how Planned Parenthood trains providers to do so as well:
> Buyer: So, I guess cell viability is a concern right? So, some of the intactness of the specimens is a pretty big deal.
> PP: Yea, so that’s where we kind of get into an ethical situation, because what I think most providers don’t want to have do, they don’t want- In terms of the steps and the preparation, and getting them to the actual procedure, you know, if you really want an intact specimen, the more dilation, the better. Is the clinic gonna you know, put in another set of laminaria to do something different? I think they’d prefer not to. For example, what I’m dealing with now, if I know what they’re looking for, I’ll just keep it in the back of my mind, and try to at least keep that part intact. But, I generally don’t do extra dilation. I won’t put in an extra set of laminaria, or add an extra day, that’s going to add significant cost of expense to everybody."
> 
> "According to Nucatola, Planned Parenthood trains its staff to change the procedures when they need to transfer fetal organs — and whether one considers that a sale or a paid-for donation, that in itself violates federal law. Nucatola’s inadvertent deposition exposes a great deal of wrongdoing. Even the best PR flacks can’t cover this up."
> 
> New Planned Parenthood spin Organ harvesting sales a humanitarian undertaking Hot Air
Click to expand...


Shitting Bull read that on Huffpo and is duped, as usual


----------



## Lakhota

Another NaziCon lie is dead.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two main liberal arguments for abortion, 1) It's just a clump of cells and 2) I'm "pro choice", not pro abortion just left the building. Gone, kaput, see you later
> 
> *Pro-Aborts: Here Are Two Arguments You Can’t Make Anymore*
> 
> Abortion is the highest sacrament in the Church of Liberalism.
> 
> The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation. Like the primitive pagan cultures before them, liberalism looks upon the sacred rite of child sacrifice with a deep reverence. The liberal has a cult-like, religious devotion to sacrament of infanticide. Liberals will venerate it for the same reason Catholics venerate the Eucharist and Muslims the Koran — because it is the centerpiece of their worship, the core, the soul of the thing.
> 
> 
> Once we understand this, we should not be surprised by the events of these last few days. To the outside observer — someone mercifully unfamiliar with the teachings of the liberal church — it might seem surprising, even remarkable, that the nation’s largest abortion provider was caught on tape selling the dismembered body parts and organs of dead children, and that liberals immediately and passionately defended the practice. The behavior on the part of Planned Parenthood shouldn’t shock us, as I said yesterday, but neither should the nauseating response from the media and various liberal pundits.
> 
> I say “response,” but naturally the response from much of the media was nothing but a blaring, deafening silence. Aside from Fox News, most of the cable and network channels dusted off their patented blackout strategy, last employed during the Kermit Gosnell trial, and ignored the scandal completely. In fairness, CNN did have more important things to talk about, like Kylie Jenner’s hairdo.
> 
> Meanwhile, liberal bloggers and commentators rushed to rescue the damsel Planned Parenthood from the evil clutches of the right wing conspiracy. In a moment of sheer dementia, Slate called the selling of dead baby organs “fluff,” and insisted that the real issue is simply that abortion is kind of “gross” — but no grosser than heart surgery or child birth.
> 
> Yes, giving birth to a child is as gross as crushing its skull and hawking its parts for cash.
> 
> *Citizens, this is liberalism. Look upon its revolting face and weep.
> *
> Attention Pro-Aborts Here Are Two Arguments You Can t Make Anymore TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any of yourown words in this post? or are you just spamming?
Click to expand...


Try and stay on point, if not stop responding to me. I'm tired of the liberal spin and deflection and if you continue I'll simply ignore you


----------



## hadit

Coyote said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the unborn give consent to have his/her body donated?  You can't take organs without explicit consent, and even then the family can stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> African slaves were once considered less human than their white counterparts.  Did it make them less human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Are you going to grant personhood to sperm now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone do that?  Sperm is part of a person.  A developing baby is not.  Surely you can see the difference, or are you just trying to cloud the issue with hyperbole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but a developing baby IS part of a person.  It share's at least one half the DNA with it's host.
Click to expand...

Conjoined twins share much more than that, yet no one says they are one person simply because they have a biological connection.  In fact, a mother expecting conjoined twins is not told she is going to have a single baby.  She's told she will have twins.


----------



## toxicmedia

SassyIrishLass said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two main liberal arguments for abortion, 1) It's just a clump of cells and 2) I'm "pro choice", not pro abortion just left the building. Gone, kaput, see you later
> *Pro-Aborts: Here Are Two Arguments You Can’t Make Anymore*
> 
> Abortion is the highest sacrament in the Church of Liberalism.
> 
> The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation. Like the primitive pagan cultures before them, liberalism looks upon the sacred rite of child sacrifice with a deep reverence. The liberal has a cult-like, religious devotion to sacrament of infanticide. Liberals will venerate it for the same reason Catholics venerate the Eucharist and Muslims the Koran — because it is the centerpiece of their worship, the core, the soul of the thing.
> 
> 
> Once we understand this, we should not be surprised by the events of these last few days. To the outside observer — someone mercifully unfamiliar with the teachings of the liberal church — it might seem surprising, even remarkable, that the nation’s largest abortion provider was caught on tape selling the dismembered body parts and organs of dead children, and that liberals immediately and passionately defended the practice. The behavior on the part of Planned Parenthood shouldn’t shock us, as I said yesterday, but neither should the nauseating response from the media and various liberal pundits.
> 
> I say “response,” but naturally the response from much of the media was nothing but a blaring, deafening silence. Aside from Fox News, most of the cable and network channels dusted off their patented blackout strategy, last employed during the Kermit Gosnell trial, and ignored the scandal completely. In fairness, CNN did have more important things to talk about, like Kylie Jenner’s hairdo.
> 
> Meanwhile, liberal bloggers and commentators rushed to rescue the damsel Planned Parenthood from the evil clutches of the right wing conspiracy. In a moment of sheer dementia, Slate called the selling of dead baby organs “fluff,” and insisted that the real issue is simply that abortion is kind of “gross” — but no grosser than heart surgery or child birth.
> 
> Yes, giving birth to a child is as gross as crushing its skull and hawking its parts for cash.
> 
> *Citizens, this is liberalism. Look upon its revolting face and weep.
> *
> Attention Pro-Aborts Here Are Two Arguments You Can t Make Anymore TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any of yourown words in this post? or are you just spamming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try and stay on point, if not stop responding to me. I'm tired of the liberal spin and deflection and if you continue I'll simply ignore you
Click to expand...

You're not supposed to cut-n-paste an article without at least making some kind of original comment of your own...or that's called spamming. It's a sign of a true parrot.

But while I have you. I am all for the killing of human babies during the first a second trimester of pregnancy, and that is legal too.

How is that for relevant to the topic?

Your attempt to demonize my position won't work on me.


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation.



If you have to lie you've lost.


----------



## HenryBHough

Big Hoo-Hah brewing over the sale of aborted body parts!

The ordinary left wants them sold only by the pound.

The extreme, Obama (all things European are great!) element wants them sold only by the kilogram.

This has the potential to be an ugly battle that will so divide The Democrat Party that Trump will sweep to victory and they won't notice until he Executive-Orders this refined sort of cannibalism to be halted.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two main liberal arguments for abortion, 1) It's just a clump of cells and 2) I'm "pro choice", not pro abortion just left the building. Gone, kaput, see you later
> *Pro-Aborts: Here Are Two Arguments You Can’t Make Anymore*
> 
> Abortion is the highest sacrament in the Church of Liberalism.
> 
> The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation. Like the primitive pagan cultures before them, liberalism looks upon the sacred rite of child sacrifice with a deep reverence. The liberal has a cult-like, religious devotion to sacrament of infanticide. Liberals will venerate it for the same reason Catholics venerate the Eucharist and Muslims the Koran — because it is the centerpiece of their worship, the core, the soul of the thing.
> 
> 
> Once we understand this, we should not be surprised by the events of these last few days. To the outside observer — someone mercifully unfamiliar with the teachings of the liberal church — it might seem surprising, even remarkable, that the nation’s largest abortion provider was caught on tape selling the dismembered body parts and organs of dead children, and that liberals immediately and passionately defended the practice. The behavior on the part of Planned Parenthood shouldn’t shock us, as I said yesterday, but neither should the nauseating response from the media and various liberal pundits.
> 
> I say “response,” but naturally the response from much of the media was nothing but a blaring, deafening silence. Aside from Fox News, most of the cable and network channels dusted off their patented blackout strategy, last employed during the Kermit Gosnell trial, and ignored the scandal completely. In fairness, CNN did have more important things to talk about, like Kylie Jenner’s hairdo.
> 
> Meanwhile, liberal bloggers and commentators rushed to rescue the damsel Planned Parenthood from the evil clutches of the right wing conspiracy. In a moment of sheer dementia, Slate called the selling of dead baby organs “fluff,” and insisted that the real issue is simply that abortion is kind of “gross” — but no grosser than heart surgery or child birth.
> 
> Yes, giving birth to a child is as gross as crushing its skull and hawking its parts for cash.
> 
> *Citizens, this is liberalism. Look upon its revolting face and weep.
> *
> Attention Pro-Aborts Here Are Two Arguments You Can t Make Anymore TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any of yourown words in this post? or are you just spamming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try and stay on point, if not stop responding to me. I'm tired of the liberal spin and deflection and if you continue I'll simply ignore you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not supposed to cut-n-paste an article without at least making some kind of original comment of your own...or that's called spamming. It's a sign of a true parrot.
> 
> But while I have you. I am all for the killing of human babies during the first a second trimester of pregnancy, and that is legal too.
> 
> How is that for relevant to the topic?
> 
> Your attempt to demonize my position won't work on me.
Click to expand...


If you were a mod I'd be concerned, you're not so I'm not and I did add comment, you're too fucking stupid to realize it. You're also some old man and havbe no say in abortion. You're dismissed, scram, old man. You are irrelevant


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlindBoo said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to lie you've lost.
Click to expand...


Get lost blind puppy doggy


----------



## koshergrl

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two main liberal arguments for abortion, 1) It's just a clump of cells and 2) I'm "pro choice", not pro abortion just left the building. Gone, kaput, see you later
> 
> *Pro-Aborts: Here Are Two Arguments You Can’t Make Anymore*
> 
> Abortion is the highest sacrament in the Church of Liberalism.
> 
> The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation. Like the primitive pagan cultures before them, liberalism looks upon the sacred rite of child sacrifice with a deep reverence. The liberal has a cult-like, religious devotion to sacrament of infanticide. Liberals will venerate it for the same reason Catholics venerate the Eucharist and Muslims the Koran — because it is the centerpiece of their worship, the core, the soul of the thing.
> 
> 
> Once we understand this, we should not be surprised by the events of these last few days. To the outside observer — someone mercifully unfamiliar with the teachings of the liberal church — it might seem surprising, even remarkable, that the nation’s largest abortion provider was caught on tape selling the dismembered body parts and organs of dead children, and that liberals immediately and passionately defended the practice. The behavior on the part of Planned Parenthood shouldn’t shock us, as I said yesterday, but neither should the nauseating response from the media and various liberal pundits.
> 
> I say “response,” but naturally the response from much of the media was nothing but a blaring, deafening silence. Aside from Fox News, most of the cable and network channels dusted off their patented blackout strategy, last employed during the Kermit Gosnell trial, and ignored the scandal completely. In fairness, CNN did have more important things to talk about, like Kylie Jenner’s hairdo.
> 
> Meanwhile, liberal bloggers and commentators rushed to rescue the damsel Planned Parenthood from the evil clutches of the right wing conspiracy. In a moment of sheer dementia, Slate called the selling of dead baby organs “fluff,” and insisted that the real issue is simply that abortion is kind of “gross” — but no grosser than heart surgery or child birth.
> 
> Yes, giving birth to a child is as gross as crushing its skull and hawking its parts for cash.
> 
> *Citizens, this is liberalism. Look upon its revolting face and weep.
> *
> Attention Pro-Aborts Here Are Two Arguments You Can t Make Anymore TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any of yourown words in this post? or are you just spamming?
Click to expand...

 
She uses her own words in the course of the discussion, then she supports them with outside sources. This is how grown-ups discuss and debate.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Wow, Planned Parenthood gets caught selling baby parts and the Gonad tweets this? Today? He needs better handlers


Barack Obama 

✔@BarackObama
"We recognize that every child deserves opportunity. Not just some. Not just our own." —President Obama


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> Wow, Planned Parenthood gets caught selling baby parts and the Gonad tweets this? Today? He needs better handlers
> 
> 
> Barack Obama
> 
> ✔@BarackObama
> "We recognize that every child deserves opportunity. Not just some. Not just our own." —President Obama


It's in line with the lie that killing SOME babies gives OTHER children a better chance.

What he means is "We recognize that our children deserve the opportunities they are afforded when your babies die". The exact opposite of what he actually says, which is the way progs work.


----------



## koshergrl

PP and the baby killing acolytes like coyote and others are going to spin this that PP does these women a favor by turning the babies around, dilating the women more in order to facilitate harvesting, (more dangerous and illegal), and harvesting the organs of their babies, and getting $$$ for them.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> PP and the baby killing acolytes like coyote and others are going to spin this that PP does these women a favor by turning the babies around, dilating the women more in order to facilitate harvesting, (more dangerous and illegal), and harvesting the organs of their babies, and getting $$$ for them.



All the spin in the world won't make it right, disgusting, evil and ghoulish. They know it but can't bring themselves to admit it


----------



## SassyIrishLass

I see Planned Parenthood's Deb Nucatola has been given a name on Twitter....Hannibal Nuctola, very fitting.

Patricia Heaton 

✔@PatriciaHeaton
Abortionist Deborah "Hannibal" Nucatola swills her chianti while talking about selling baby parts. http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/14/shock-video-catches-planned-parenthoods-top-doctor-selling-body-parts-of-aborted-babies/ … #PPSellsBabyParts


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> I see Planned Parenthood's Deb Nucatola has been given a name on Twitter....Hannibal Nuctola, very fitting.
> 
> Patricia Heaton
> 
> ✔@PatriciaHeaton
> Abortionist Deborah "Hannibal" Nucatola swills her chianti while talking about selling baby parts. http://www.lifenews.com/2015/07/14/shock-video-catches-planned-parenthoods-top-doctor-selling-body-parts-of-aborted-babies/ … #PPSellsBabyParts


 The degree of callousness and criminality is just over the top.


----------



## Coyote

hadit said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fetus isn't a person.
> 
> 
> 
> African slaves were once considered less human than their white counterparts.  Did it make them less human?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Are you going to grant personhood to sperm now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone do that?  Sperm is part of a person.  A developing baby is not.  Surely you can see the difference, or are you just trying to cloud the issue with hyperbole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but a developing baby IS part of a person.  It share's at least one half the DNA with it's host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conjoined twins share much more than that, yet no one says they are one person simply because they have a biological connection.  In fact, a mother expecting conjoined twins is not told she is going to have a single baby.  She's told she will have twins.
Click to expand...


She is going to have.  She is expecting.  It isn't a person yet.


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to lie you've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get lost blind puppy doggy
Click to expand...


Quit lying.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlindBoo said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to lie you've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get lost blind puppy doggy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit lying.
Click to expand...


GFY, pooch


----------



## toxicmedia

Wow.........

Just...wow........


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to lie you've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get lost blind puppy doggy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GFY, pooch
Click to expand...


You guys really don't have a thing without resorting to lies do you?

It's what you do.  Like Geico........it's what you do.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlindBoo said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to lie you've lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get lost blind puppy doggy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GFY, pooch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guy really don't have a thing without resorting to lies do you?
> 
> It's what you do.  Like Geico........it's what you do.
Click to expand...


----------



## hadit

Coyote said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> African slaves were once considered less human than their white counterparts.  Did it make them less human?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Are you going to grant personhood to sperm now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would anyone do that?  Sperm is part of a person.  A developing baby is not.  Surely you can see the difference, or are you just trying to cloud the issue with hyperbole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but a developing baby IS part of a person.  It share's at least one half the DNA with it's host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conjoined twins share much more than that, yet no one says they are one person simply because they have a biological connection.  In fact, a mother expecting conjoined twins is not told she is going to have a single baby.  She's told she will have twins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is going to have.  She is expecting.  It isn't a person yet.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.  The baby is not part of her body.


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have to lie you've lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get lost blind puppy doggy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quit lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GFY, pooch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guy really don't have a thing without resorting to lies do you?
> 
> It's what you do.  Like Geico........it's what you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


When all else fails.......lie yer ass off like S___yIrishL___.


----------



## Coyote

hadit said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a person.
> 
> Are you going to grant personhood to sperm now?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone do that?  Sperm is part of a person.  A developing baby is not.  Surely you can see the difference, or are you just trying to cloud the issue with hyperbole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but a developing baby IS part of a person.  It share's at least one half the DNA with it's host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conjoined twins share much more than that, yet no one says they are one person simply because they have a biological connection.  In fact, a mother expecting conjoined twins is not told she is going to have a single baby.  She's told she will have twins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is going to have.  She is expecting.  It isn't a person yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  The baby is not part of her body.
Click to expand...


It is until it can live without it.


----------



## HenryBHough

Imagine the career opportunities!  Enjoy a good lay; kick back for a few weeks gestating and then be relived of the burden and get paid for it!  What's not to like? But would it help Our Kenyan Emperor's employment stats?  Would parts-growing qualify as an occupation - like farming?


----------



## hadit

Coyote said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone do that?  Sperm is part of a person.  A developing baby is not.  Surely you can see the difference, or are you just trying to cloud the issue with hyperbole?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but a developing baby IS part of a person.  It share's at least one half the DNA with it's host.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conjoined twins share much more than that, yet no one says they are one person simply because they have a biological connection.  In fact, a mother expecting conjoined twins is not told she is going to have a single baby.  She's told she will have twins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is going to have.  She is expecting.  It isn't a person yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  The baby is not part of her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is until it can live without it.
Click to expand...

False.  Conjoined twins who cannot live without the other are considered separate persons.


----------



## 2aguy

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The two main liberal arguments for abortion, 1) It's just a clump of cells and 2) I'm "pro choice", not pro abortion just left the building. Gone, kaput, see you later
> *Pro-Aborts: Here Are Two Arguments You Can’t Make Anymore*
> 
> Abortion is the highest sacrament in the Church of Liberalism.
> 
> The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation. Like the primitive pagan cultures before them, liberalism looks upon the sacred rite of child sacrifice with a deep reverence. The liberal has a cult-like, religious devotion to sacrament of infanticide. Liberals will venerate it for the same reason Catholics venerate the Eucharist and Muslims the Koran — because it is the centerpiece of their worship, the core, the soul of the thing.
> 
> 
> Once we understand this, we should not be surprised by the events of these last few days. To the outside observer — someone mercifully unfamiliar with the teachings of the liberal church — it might seem surprising, even remarkable, that the nation’s largest abortion provider was caught on tape selling the dismembered body parts and organs of dead children, and that liberals immediately and passionately defended the practice. The behavior on the part of Planned Parenthood shouldn’t shock us, as I said yesterday, but neither should the nauseating response from the media and various liberal pundits.
> 
> I say “response,” but naturally the response from much of the media was nothing but a blaring, deafening silence. Aside from Fox News, most of the cable and network channels dusted off their patented blackout strategy, last employed during the Kermit Gosnell trial, and ignored the scandal completely. In fairness, CNN did have more important things to talk about, like Kylie Jenner’s hairdo.
> 
> Meanwhile, liberal bloggers and commentators rushed to rescue the damsel Planned Parenthood from the evil clutches of the right wing conspiracy. In a moment of sheer dementia, Slate called the selling of dead baby organs “fluff,” and insisted that the real issue is simply that abortion is kind of “gross” — but no grosser than heart surgery or child birth.
> 
> Yes, giving birth to a child is as gross as crushing its skull and hawking its parts for cash.
> 
> *Citizens, this is liberalism. Look upon its revolting face and weep.
> *
> Attention Pro-Aborts Here Are Two Arguments You Can t Make Anymore TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any of yourown words in this post? or are you just spamming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try and stay on point, if not stop responding to me. I'm tired of the liberal spin and deflection and if you continue I'll simply ignore you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not supposed to cut-n-paste an article without at least making some kind of original comment of your own...or that's called spamming. It's a sign of a true parrot.
> 
> But while I have you. I am all for the killing of human babies during the first a second trimester of pregnancy, and that is legal too.
> 
> How is that for relevant to the topic?
> 
> Your attempt to demonize my position won't work on me.
Click to expand...



If that is your position you have demonized yourself....we don't have to do a thing.......


----------



## depotoo

Not dead like the babies...





Lakhota said:


> Another NaziCon lie is dead.


----------



## MisterBeale

LoneLaugher said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Wish I hadn't watched that.  Gives a whole new meaning to the term, "Merchants of Death."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....if you are gullible and believe anything you are told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the video, it seemed pretty self explanatory.  Link me to another thread or another source, I'm open minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I did have my suspicions that something was off when the price was quoted as,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucatola replies, “You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100, depending on the facility and what’s involved.” The fake rep then clarifies, “The $30 to $100 price range, that’s per specimen that we’re talking about, right?” Nucatola answers, “Per specimen. Yes.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video
> 
> In the free market, I was pretty certain stem cells go for a much higher cost to researchers than that.  Something definitely did seem to be amiss.  It makes much more sense that this was the cost for handling donations.
> 
> Still, we must keep in mind, this doesn't make what planned parenthood is doing exactly ethically right or morally proper.  However, it's up to each flock to keep their own I suppose.  As long as they stay away from minor girls and get no government funding they can do their evil in their own little corner of the world.  This is America, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they are doing IS ethically right. According to MY moral compass, it is also "proper".
> 
> What isn't ethical nor moral is the fucking hit job video and the way it has been shoved through the echo chamber.
Click to expand...


Wow.  So a hit job video is less ethical than using abortion as birth control?  You're a piece work, really.

Guess this world is all sorts of crazy and no compass is any good with that pole reversal, eh?


----------



## depotoo

Joe, joe, joe, you know I posted a link to the whole video and its transcripts.  Show us where the context is wrong from the whole video, will ya?





JoeB131 said:


> I watched this video which was heavily edited to the point where you really didn't get the context, and you really can't tell what she was referring to.
> 
> She also had a glass of wine in front of her, and I have to wonder if she was a bit schnockered.


----------



## LoneLaugher

MisterBeale said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....if you are gullible and believe anything you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the video, it seemed pretty self explanatory.  Link me to another thread or another source, I'm open minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I did have my suspicions that something was off when the price was quoted as,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucatola replies, “You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100, depending on the facility and what’s involved.” The fake rep then clarifies, “The $30 to $100 price range, that’s per specimen that we’re talking about, right?” Nucatola answers, “Per specimen. Yes.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video
> 
> In the free market, I was pretty certain stem cells go for a much higher cost to researchers than that.  Something definitely did seem to be amiss.  It makes much more sense that this was the cost for handling donations.
> 
> Still, we must keep in mind, this doesn't make what planned parenthood is doing exactly ethically right or morally proper.  However, it's up to each flock to keep their own I suppose.  As long as they stay away from minor girls and get no government funding they can do their evil in their own little corner of the world.  This is America, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they are doing IS ethically right. According to MY moral compass, it is also "proper".
> 
> What isn't ethical nor moral is the fucking hit job video and the way it has been shoved through the echo chamber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  So a hit job video is less ethical than using abortion as birth control?  You're a piece work, really.
> 
> Guess this world is all sorts of crazy and no compass is any good with that pole reversal, eh?
Click to expand...


When did we discuss using abortion as birth control? 

Do you have a need to be dishonest?


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Planned Mengelehood


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

depotoo said:


> Not dead like the babies...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another NaziCon lie is dead.
Click to expand...

what babies are dead ? how old where they and what were their names ...?


----------



## The Irish Ram

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *and hey if you know some OCD anti abortionist invite them over for some cookies and milk...when they show up serve them a lump of raw frozen  cookie dough...when they go ..."what the heck is this"...tell them its a cookie same as a an embryo being a person...............*



Do you get that an embryo and full term partial birth are 2 different things? 

Take a newborn, slit it's neck or crush it's skull, and serve it as a cookie, and when they go, "You murdered a child and then served it to us?  You should be in prison.  Tell them,  "I didn't realize what a partial birth abortion meant.  Now I know why they crushed the babies heads, and not it's vital organs."


----------



## SassyIrishLass

The Irish Ram said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *and hey if you know some OCD anti abortionist invite them over for some cookies and milk...when they show up serve them a lump of raw frozen  cookie dough...when they go ..."what the heck is this"...tell them its a cookie same as a an embryo being a person...............*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get that an embryo and full term partial birth are 2 different things?
> 
> Take a newborn, slit it's neck or crush it's skull, and serve it as a cookie, and when they go, "You murdered a child and then served it to us?  You should be in prison.  Tell them,  "I didn't realize what a partial birth abortion meant.  Now I know why they crushed the babies heads, and not it's vital organs."
Click to expand...


Twenty four week old baby, I'm here to tell ya that is no embryo 

http://


----------



## Coyote

hadit said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but a developing baby IS part of a person.  It share's at least one half the DNA with it's host.
> 
> 
> 
> Conjoined twins share much more than that, yet no one says they are one person simply because they have a biological connection.  In fact, a mother expecting conjoined twins is not told she is going to have a single baby.  She's told she will have twins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She is going to have.  She is expecting.  It isn't a person yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  The baby is not part of her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is until it can live without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.  Conjoined twins who cannot live without the other are considered separate persons.
Click to expand...

 
True. Once they are born they are unique persons - conjoined or not.  It's also a false comparison.  Conjoined twins require each other to live.  A mother does not require the zygote, blastocyst or fetus in order to live and her body may expel it naturally at any time.

Prior to birth or viability - they are part of the mother's body.


----------



## Coyote

.


SassyIrishLass said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *and hey if you know some OCD anti abortionist invite them over for some cookies and milk...when they show up serve them a lump of raw frozen  cookie dough...when they go ..."what the heck is this"...tell them its a cookie same as a an embryo being a person...............*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get that an embryo and full term partial birth are 2 different things?
> 
> Take a newborn, slit it's neck or crush it's skull, and serve it as a cookie, and when they go, "You murdered a child and then served it to us?  You should be in prison.  Tell them,  "I didn't realize what a partial birth abortion meant.  Now I know why they crushed the babies heads, and not it's vital organs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty four week old baby, I'm here to tell ya that is no embryo
> 
> http://
Click to expand...


At 24 weeks a fetus is not an embryo, it is also considered viable.  Abortions are highly restricted in those cases and usually done for health or life of mother or severe fetal defects.

I'm still wondering about this claim of full-term abortions, and babies being born, killed and sold for body parts.


----------



## The Irish Ram

toxicmedia said:


> You pro lifers amaze me.
> 
> Your argument can be completely destroyed and exposed for the ingnorant hysteria it really is.....
> 
> Then like a boomarang, you can just forget that all happened, and relax in your hyperbole of hate.



You go watch a partial birth abortion, and you'll never forget that it happened.    Do you know why you can watch ISIS murdering people on you tube, but not a partial birth abortion?  Because your hyperbole of bullshit, would never convince any human being with a conscience that it is ok to slit a baby's neck before the umbilical cord is cut.

A little education on what we can do to newborns because of the hyperbole of "I know my rights!"

Legal Affairs


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> .
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *and hey if you know some OCD anti abortionist invite them over for some cookies and milk...when they show up serve them a lump of raw frozen  cookie dough...when they go ..."what the heck is this"...tell them its a cookie same as a an embryo being a person...............*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get that an embryo and full term partial birth are 2 different things?
> 
> Take a newborn, slit it's neck or crush it's skull, and serve it as a cookie, and when they go, "You murdered a child and then served it to us?  You should be in prison.  Tell them,  "I didn't realize what a partial birth abortion meant.  Now I know why they crushed the babies heads, and not it's vital organs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty four week old baby, I'm here to tell ya that is no embryo
> 
> http://
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At 24 weeks a fetus is not an embryo, it is also considered viable.  Abortions are highly restricted in those cases and usually done for health or life of mother or severe fetal defects.
> 
> I'm still wondering about this claim of full-term abortions, and babies being born, killed and sold for body parts.
Click to expand...


I'm wondering about a lot of it. I need research when a liver and heart are viable. I should do that


----------



## Coyote

The Irish Ram said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pro lifers amaze me.
> 
> Your argument can be completely destroyed and exposed for the ingnorant hysteria it really is.....
> 
> Then like a boomarang, you can just forget that all happened, and relax in your hyperbole of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go watch a partial birth abortion, and you'll never forget that it happened.    Do you know why you can watch ISIS murdering people on you tube, but not a partial birth abortion?  Because your hyperbole of bullshit, would never convince any human being with a conscience that it is ok to slit a baby's neck before the umbilical cord is cut.
> 
> A little education on what we can do to newborns because of the hyperbole of "I know my rights!"
> 
> Legal Affairs
Click to expand...




SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *and hey if you know some OCD anti abortionist invite them over for some cookies and milk...when they show up serve them a lump of raw frozen  cookie dough...when they go ..."what the heck is this"...tell them its a cookie same as a an embryo being a person...............*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get that an embryo and full term partial birth are 2 different things?
> 
> Take a newborn, slit it's neck or crush it's skull, and serve it as a cookie, and when they go, "You murdered a child and then served it to us?  You should be in prison.  Tell them,  "I didn't realize what a partial birth abortion meant.  Now I know why they crushed the babies heads, and not it's vital organs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty four week old baby, I'm here to tell ya that is no embryo
> 
> http://
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At 24 weeks a fetus is not an embryo, it is also considered viable.  Abortions are highly restricted in those cases and usually done for health or life of mother or severe fetal defects.
> 
> I'm still wondering about this claim of full-term abortions, and babies being born, killed and sold for body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm wondering about a lot of it. I need research when a liver and heart are viable. I should do that
Click to expand...

 
I would research the facts first if I were you - thus far, they seem to be missing from much of the discussion.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pro lifers amaze me.
> 
> Your argument can be completely destroyed and exposed for the ingnorant hysteria it really is.....
> 
> Then like a boomarang, you can just forget that all happened, and relax in your hyperbole of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go watch a partial birth abortion, and you'll never forget that it happened.    Do you know why you can watch ISIS murdering people on you tube, but not a partial birth abortion?  Because your hyperbole of bullshit, would never convince any human being with a conscience that it is ok to slit a baby's neck before the umbilical cord is cut.
> 
> A little education on what we can do to newborns because of the hyperbole of "I know my rights!"
> 
> Legal Affairs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *and hey if you know some OCD anti abortionist invite them over for some cookies and milk...when they show up serve them a lump of raw frozen  cookie dough...when they go ..."what the heck is this"...tell them its a cookie same as a an embryo being a person...............*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you get that an embryo and full term partial birth are 2 different things?
> 
> Take a newborn, slit it's neck or crush it's skull, and serve it as a cookie, and when they go, "You murdered a child and then served it to us?  You should be in prison.  Tell them,  "I didn't realize what a partial birth abortion meant.  Now I know why they crushed the babies heads, and not it's vital organs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty four week old baby, I'm here to tell ya that is no embryo
> 
> http://
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At 24 weeks a fetus is not an embryo, it is also considered viable.  Abortions are highly restricted in those cases and usually done for health or life of mother or severe fetal defects.
> 
> I'm still wondering about this claim of full-term abortions, and babies being born, killed and sold for body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm wondering about a lot of it. I need research when a liver and heart are viable. I should do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would research the facts first if I were you - thus far, they seem to be missing from much of the discussion.
Click to expand...


Please point out anything I've said that isn't factual. I do my research


----------



## hadit

Coyote said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conjoined twins share much more than that, yet no one says they are one person simply because they have a biological connection.  In fact, a mother expecting conjoined twins is not told she is going to have a single baby.  She's told she will have twins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is going to have.  She is expecting.  It isn't a person yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  The baby is not part of her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is until it can live without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.  Conjoined twins who cannot live without the other are considered separate persons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. Once they are born they are unique persons - conjoined or not.  It's also a false comparison.  Conjoined twins require each other to live.  A mother does not require the zygote, blastocyst or fetus in order to live and her body may expel it naturally at any time.
Click to expand...


So dependence is not a qualifier, good.



> Prior to birth or viability - they are part of the mother's body.


Again, false.  The developing baby creates a filter to prevent mixing of blood between the two.  The baby has unique DNA and features.  He/she moves without the mother's control.  Tell you what, ask the next 100 pregnant women you see if what is growing inside of her is a part of her body or a baby.  See what they say.  Also, if you kill a pregnant woman, you can have multiple murder charges lodged against you.  That would be impossible if the developing baby is in fact merely a part of the mother's body.


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pro lifers amaze me.
> 
> Your argument can be completely destroyed and exposed for the ingnorant hysteria it really is.....
> 
> Then like a boomarang, you can just forget that all happened, and relax in your hyperbole of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go watch a partial birth abortion, and you'll never forget that it happened.    Do you know why you can watch ISIS murdering people on you tube, but not a partial birth abortion?  Because your hyperbole of bullshit, would never convince any human being with a conscience that it is ok to slit a baby's neck before the umbilical cord is cut.
> 
> A little education on what we can do to newborns because of the hyperbole of "I know my rights!"
> 
> Legal Affairs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get that an embryo and full term partial birth are 2 different things?
> 
> Take a newborn, slit it's neck or crush it's skull, and serve it as a cookie, and when they go, "You murdered a child and then served it to us?  You should be in prison.  Tell them,  "I didn't realize what a partial birth abortion meant.  Now I know why they crushed the babies heads, and not it's vital organs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty four week old baby, I'm here to tell ya that is no embryo
> 
> http://
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At 24 weeks a fetus is not an embryo, it is also considered viable.  Abortions are highly restricted in those cases and usually done for health or life of mother or severe fetal defects.
> 
> I'm still wondering about this claim of full-term abortions, and babies being born, killed and sold for body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm wondering about a lot of it. I need research when a liver and heart are viable. I should do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would research the facts first if I were you - thus far, they seem to be missing from much of the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point out anything I've said that isn't factual. I do my research
Click to expand...

 
She's just saying that so she can continue to try to justify baby killing.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Interesting, according to this article and university the heart isn't developed until around the 20th week of pregnancy.

THURSDAY, Feb. 21 (HealthDay News) -- The human heart is not fully formed until much later in pregnancy than previously thought, a new study suggests.

British researchers analyzed scans of the hearts of healthy fetuses in the womb and found that the heart has four clearly defined chambers in the eighth week of pregnancy, but does not have fully organized muscle tissue until the 20th week.

Fetal Heart May Develop Later in Pregnancy Than Thought - US News


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pro lifers amaze me.
> 
> Your argument can be completely destroyed and exposed for the ingnorant hysteria it really is.....
> 
> Then like a boomarang, you can just forget that all happened, and relax in your hyperbole of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go watch a partial birth abortion, and you'll never forget that it happened.    Do you know why you can watch ISIS murdering people on you tube, but not a partial birth abortion?  Because your hyperbole of bullshit, would never convince any human being with a conscience that it is ok to slit a baby's neck before the umbilical cord is cut.
> 
> A little education on what we can do to newborns because of the hyperbole of "I know my rights!"
> 
> Legal Affairs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you get that an embryo and full term partial birth are 2 different things?
> 
> Take a newborn, slit it's neck or crush it's skull, and serve it as a cookie, and when they go, "You murdered a child and then served it to us?  You should be in prison.  Tell them,  "I didn't realize what a partial birth abortion meant.  Now I know why they crushed the babies heads, and not it's vital organs."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Twenty four week old baby, I'm here to tell ya that is no embryo
> 
> http://
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At 24 weeks a fetus is not an embryo, it is also considered viable.  Abortions are highly restricted in those cases and usually done for health or life of mother or severe fetal defects.
> 
> I'm still wondering about this claim of full-term abortions, and babies being born, killed and sold for body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm wondering about a lot of it. I need research when a liver and heart are viable. I should do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would research the facts first if I were you - thus far, they seem to be missing from much of the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point out anything I've said that isn't factual. I do my research
Click to expand...

 
She's just saying that so she can continue to try to justify baby killing. And now, selling.


----------



## The Irish Ram

It is a scientific fact that an organism exists after conception that did not exist before conception. This new organism has its own DNA distinct from the mother and father, meaning that it is neither part of the mother nor part of father. As the embryo grows, it develops a heartbeat (22 days after conception), its own circulatory system, and its own organs. From conception it is a new organism that is alive and will continue to grow and develop as long as nutrition is provided and its life is not ended through violence or illness.

The mother is an incubator and possesses a feed tube for a short period of that human's life.  The baby is not an extension of the mother.  If it was only one heart would be necessary for both.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Congress will investigate PP. I hope they shut them down forever and whoever was involved does serious prison time

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 15, 2015  – One day after an undercover video showed a senior Planned Parenthood official discussing her apparent use of an illegal abortion technique to harvest and sell fetal organs, Congress has announced it will investigate the abortion giant.

"Congress must—and will—investigate and put an end to these barbaric practices,” Congressman Chris Smith, R-NJ, said in a press conference at the U.S. Capitol today.

Smith, who authored the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000, called Planned Parenthood's sale of unborn babies' body parts “another cruel manifestation of human trafficking.”

Congress to investigate Planned Parenthood after video reveals harvesting baby organs News LifeSite


----------



## koshergrl

It needs to be a local, criminal investigation as well.


----------



## HenryBHough

Coming soon:

A pay-per-view channel so you liberals can sponsor your hobby while enjoying seeing experts test their skills!


----------



## The Irish Ram

The left will fight to the death to prevent PP from being shut down.  All the more reason to remove the left from making decisions that further their agenda regardless of the cost.


----------



## HenryBHough

Just think.....these days a woman can say she's just a little bit pregnant and actually mean it!


----------



## MisterBeale

LoneLaugher said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the video, it seemed pretty self explanatory.  Link me to another thread or another source, I'm open minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I did have my suspicions that something was off when the price was quoted as,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucatola replies, “You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100, depending on the facility and what’s involved.” The fake rep then clarifies, “The $30 to $100 price range, that’s per specimen that we’re talking about, right?” Nucatola answers, “Per specimen. Yes.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video
> 
> In the free market, I was pretty certain stem cells go for a much higher cost to researchers than that.  Something definitely did seem to be amiss.  It makes much more sense that this was the cost for handling donations.
> 
> Still, we must keep in mind, this doesn't make what planned parenthood is doing exactly ethically right or morally proper.  However, it's up to each flock to keep their own I suppose.  As long as they stay away from minor girls and get no government funding they can do their evil in their own little corner of the world.  This is America, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they are doing IS ethically right. According to MY moral compass, it is also "proper".
> 
> What isn't ethical nor moral is the fucking hit job video and the way it has been shoved through the echo chamber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  So a hit job video is less ethical than using abortion as birth control?  You're a piece work, really.
> 
> Guess this world is all sorts of crazy and no compass is any good with that pole reversal, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did we discuss using abortion as birth control?
> 
> Do you have a need to be dishonest?
Click to expand...


We don't have to have that discussion, everybody already knows.  As far as honesty goes?  Don't make me laugh.  Everyone, no matter if they are on the left, or the right, no matter how they feel about me, know that I back my shit up and that I am always honest.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD.  It's in the name.  Kill your baby till there is a more convenient time for you to have a family.  Any educated person knows Margaret Sanger founded planned parenthood.  Do you really not know what she believed in?  Do you really not know anything about her philosophy?  Seriously?


----------



## FA_Q2

Coyote said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conjoined twins share much more than that, yet no one says they are one person simply because they have a biological connection.  In fact, a mother expecting conjoined twins is not told she is going to have a single baby.  She's told she will have twins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She is going to have.  She is expecting.  It isn't a person yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Irrelevant.  The baby is not part of her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is until it can live without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.  Conjoined twins who cannot live without the other are considered separate persons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. Once they are born they are unique persons - conjoined or not.  It's also a false comparison.  Conjoined twins require each other to live.  A mother does not require the zygote, blastocyst or fetus in order to live and her body may expel it naturally at any time.
> 
> Prior to birth or viability - they are part of the mother's body.
Click to expand...

This is blatantly false.  It is an often passed around lie that helps ignore what you are actually supporting when you support abortion (something I actually support but I at least acknowledge WHAT abortion really is).

An unborn child is no more part of the mother than a parasite or bacteria that lives in her body.  They are, by definition, separate entities.  That is simple fact.

At the very least you should recognize that there actually is another life involved here.


Coyote said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perpetual pregnancy is vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Perpetual pregnancy"
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me the lack of knowledge democrats,liberals and progressives have on Sanger. She was an evil, evil woman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya.  So evil she liberated women from the slavery of perpetual pregnancy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perpetual pregnancy is vile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Human Biology 101 says you are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Human Biology 101 says that is impossible.
> 
> Why do you have issues with women controlling their ability to get pregnant or, by extension, being able to enjoy sex on the same level that men do?
Click to expand...


This is no different than shouting baby killer - it is a bullshit straw man.  Virtually no one takes issue with a woman controlling her ability to get pregnant (or even her body for that matter) and her enjoyment of sex.  The pro-life argument has always been cente4red around the FAILURE to do so and the tossing out of the resultant LIFE that has been created.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote knows it. She just wants them dead.


----------



## hortysir

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking news?  Chris Wallace's interview was from 2000.  Here is an article this from 1987. Medical Use of Fetal Tissues Spurs New Abortion Debate - NYTimes.com
> 
> Great scoop there on a story that broke 28 years ago.  How many lives have been saved because of the research done on this tissue?
> 
> And, no, it is not a crime to use this tissue in research.
Click to expand...




toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> I can't find anything about this online, except from every pro life web site on the planet.
> 
> When I back out of the outrage and hasty judgments the pro life industry wants me to have...I start to ask myself why this is different from people dying in traffic accidents and donating their organs.
> 
> I guess what pro lifers want implied here, is that Planned Parenthood is aborting fetuses, for parts, which would otherwise NOT have been aborted. I don't see any evidence that this is the case.
> 
> If you had a child born with a bad liver, or heart, wouldn't this be a good thing?
Click to expand...




paddymurphy said:


> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> I can't find anything about this online, except from every pro life web site on the planet.
> 
> When I back out of the outrage and hasty judgments the pro life industry wants me to have...I start to ask myself why this is different from people dying in traffic accidents and donating their organs.
> 
> I guess what pro lifers want implied here, is that Planned Parenthood is aborting fetuses, for parts, which would otherwise NOT have been aborted. I don't see any evidence that this is the case.
> 
> If you had a child born with a bad liver, or heart, wouldn't this be a good thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no difference and there is no "selling" of tissue or organs.  The fees discussed are the cost of removing and preserving the tissue for research.
Click to expand...

But fetuses aren't 'humans", right?

Which is it?


----------



## LoneLaugher

MisterBeale said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I did have my suspicions that something was off when the price was quoted as,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucatola replies, “You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100, depending on the facility and what’s involved.” The fake rep then clarifies, “The $30 to $100 price range, that’s per specimen that we’re talking about, right?” Nucatola answers, “Per specimen. Yes.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video
> 
> In the free market, I was pretty certain stem cells go for a much higher cost to researchers than that.  Something definitely did seem to be amiss.  It makes much more sense that this was the cost for handling donations.
> 
> Still, we must keep in mind, this doesn't make what planned parenthood is doing exactly ethically right or morally proper.  However, it's up to each flock to keep their own I suppose.  As long as they stay away from minor girls and get no government funding they can do their evil in their own little corner of the world.  This is America, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they are doing IS ethically right. According to MY moral compass, it is also "proper".
> 
> What isn't ethical nor moral is the fucking hit job video and the way it has been shoved through the echo chamber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  So a hit job video is less ethical than using abortion as birth control?  You're a piece work, really.
> 
> Guess this world is all sorts of crazy and no compass is any good with that pole reversal, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did we discuss using abortion as birth control?
> 
> Do you have a need to be dishonest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't have to have that discussion, everybody already knows.  As far as honesty goes?  Don't make me laugh.  Everyone, no matter if they are on the left, or the right, no matter how they feel about me, know that I back my shit up and that I am always honest.
> 
> PLANNED PARENTHOOD.  It's in the name.  Kill your baby till there is a more convenient time for you to have a family.  Any educated person knows Margaret Sanger founded planned parenthood.  Do you really not know what she believed in?  Do you really not know anything about her philosophy?  Seriously?
Click to expand...


If we did not discuss abortion as birth control, why would you bring it up in a bullshit claim about my ethics? 

Dishonesty. That's why.


----------



## koshergrl

"...According to science, conception marks the creation of a distinct human being, and, according to polls, strong majorities of American voters think that abortion should be illegal after the first three months of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood is currently leading a campaign to ensure that the United States remains one of seven countries in the world where elective abortions are legal later than five months into pregnancy."

Planned Parenthood President Life Begins at Delivery The Weekly Standard


----------



## koshergrl

MisterBeale said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....if you are gullible and believe anything you are told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the video, it seemed pretty self explanatory.  Link me to another thread or another source, I'm open minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks.  I did have my suspicions that something was off when the price was quoted as,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nucatola replies, “You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100, depending on the facility and what’s involved.” The fake rep then clarifies, “The $30 to $100 price range, that’s per specimen that we’re talking about, right?” Nucatola answers, “Per specimen. Yes.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Planned Parenthood Responds to Undercover Video
> 
> In the free market, I was pretty certain stem cells go for a much higher cost to researchers than that.  Something definitely did seem to be amiss.  It makes much more sense that this was the cost for handling donations.
> 
> Still, we must keep in mind, this doesn't make what planned parenthood is doing exactly ethically right or morally proper.  However, it's up to each flock to keep their own I suppose.  As long as they stay away from minor girls and get no government funding they can do their evil in their own little corner of the world.  This is America, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they are doing IS ethically right. According to MY moral compass, it is also "proper".
> 
> What isn't ethical nor moral is the fucking hit job video and the way it has been shoved through the echo chamber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  So a hit job video is less ethical than using abortion as birth control?  You're a piece work, really.
> 
> Guess this world is all sorts of crazy and no compass is any good with that pole reversal, eh?
Click to expand...

 
It's not a hit job. And there are more coming.

Yes, killing babies is worse, ethically speaking, than exposing the people who exploit and endanger vulnerable, pregnant women, in order to harvest, and sell, their babies. The world is crazy, but we aren't the crazy ones.


----------



## BlindBoo

A classic O'Keefe 'er.  Misrepresenting the established procurement process for research tissue as selling dead babies.

Think it will work like the hit piece they did on Acorn?


----------



## BlindBoo

hortysir said:


> But fetuses aren't 'humans", right?



Why would researchers have to jump through hoops to procure tissue from non-humans?

Who said the aborted fetuses are not human anyway?


----------



## hortysir

paddymurphy said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.
> 
> I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.
> 
> Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.
> 
> If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.
> 
> I like Walker. I may vote for the man.
> 
> I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".
> 
> Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right used these issues as wedge issues in the past.  Now that the nation has decided the Democrats are right, they are going to try to ignore them.  Why should Walker be permitted to not tell us what he will do on these two issues?  He has advanced draconian anti-abortion legislation in his state; laws that treat women like children.  Those actions are entirely relevant to whether or not he should get a person's vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's "draconian" about having an expectant mother to have an ultra-sound before having an abortion? Is defunding an organization started by a self-admitted racist who sought to reduce the population of blacks "draconian"? And how does any bill Walker passed treat woman like "children"? His own Lt. Governor is a woman, are you saying Walker hates women? His concealed carry law gives women the same right to defend themselves, as men. Besides, what difference does it make what he does? You're not going to vote for him or any other Republican, you're going to waste your vote on "Hillary/Sanders/Biden/Insert Communist of your choice here."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was one of the provisions.  The law that requires that doctors have admitting privileges is absolutely designed to make it more difficult for women to have a perfectly legal procedure.  There is no reason for this law other than to interfere with the right of a woman to have access to abortion.  There is no medical reason to require an ultrasound. None.  It is a law that suggests that women are really not aware of what the are doing when they decide to have an abortion.  It is a violation of their rights to force them to undergo any kind of medical procedure.  As for the idiotic comments about guns, was it unlawful from women to carry a concealed weapon before while it was legal for men?  What a moronic example.  And your comments about Planned parenthood mimic the same lies that other of your ilk spread.  I have voted for Republicans.. for the US Senate, for Congress and for Governor of my state.  I will not vote for Walker because of his far right views; views that are out of touch with the American public.
Click to expand...

So the "expectant mother" (Mother means she has or is having a child - not a fetus) can't have an ultrasound but the organ-harvesting doctor can use it to avoid damaging the organs?


----------



## LoneLaugher

BlindBoo said:


> A classic O'Keefe 'er.  Misrepresenting the established procurement process for research tissue as selling dead babies.
> 
> Think it will work like the hit piece they did on Acorn?



It worked already. The target audience is the 20% of the nutters who will drop a dime on a book or a coffee mug. 

This lie is already gospel.


----------



## BlindBoo

LoneLaugher said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A classic O'Keefe 'er.  Misrepresenting the established procurement process for research tissue as selling dead babies.
> 
> Think it will work like the hit piece they did on Acorn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It worked already. The target audience is the 20% of the nutters who will drop a dime on a book or a coffee mug.
> 
> This lie is already gospel.
Click to expand...


I don't know, the Dems folded pretty damn quick on Acorn and  Shirley Sherrod but maybe they wont fold so quickly on PP

Several Dems defend Planned Parenthood TheHill


----------



## Stephanie

20 weeks old. you abortion lovers are sick


----------



## koshergrl

hortysir said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you mention Scott Walker...you may end up being right.
> 
> I've been scratching my head lately to figure out why Donald Trump is doing what he's doing, along with why it took so long for the GOP to trot out Walker as a candidate.
> 
> Trump was sent out for contrast. Now Walker seems completely sane by comparison. Have you noticed the GOP Presidential candidates coming out in intervals? This is not coincidence, it's Reince Preibus's overall strategy at work.
> 
> If you position Walker where he is in the parade, it's near the end, and the DNC is out of turds and rotten tomatos to fling, because they thoroughly abused all the other candidates.
> 
> I like Walker. I may vote for the man.
> 
> I also don't think he'll spend much time as a candidate on issues like gay marriage and abortion. And not much time as President either
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issues like gay marriage and abortion and just the dead skunk issues the Dems like to throw around. Last time it was their "War on Women".
> 
> Walker has alot of class and isn't stupid enough to let himself fall into those traps. He actually side-stepped a couple questions while being interviewed on FOX News last night, by stating it was too early to weigh in on the subject before he had more information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right used these issues as wedge issues in the past.  Now that the nation has decided the Democrats are right, they are going to try to ignore them.  Why should Walker be permitted to not tell us what he will do on these two issues?  He has advanced draconian anti-abortion legislation in his state; laws that treat women like children.  Those actions are entirely relevant to whether or not he should get a person's vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's "draconian" about having an expectant mother to have an ultra-sound before having an abortion? Is defunding an organization started by a self-admitted racist who sought to reduce the population of blacks "draconian"? And how does any bill Walker passed treat woman like "children"? His own Lt. Governor is a woman, are you saying Walker hates women? His concealed carry law gives women the same right to defend themselves, as men. Besides, what difference does it make what he does? You're not going to vote for him or any other Republican, you're going to waste your vote on "Hillary/Sanders/Biden/Insert Communist of your choice here."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was one of the provisions.  The law that requires that doctors have admitting privileges is absolutely designed to make it more difficult for women to have a perfectly legal procedure.  There is no reason for this law other than to interfere with the right of a woman to have access to abortion.  There is no medical reason to require an ultrasound. None.  It is a law that suggests that women are really not aware of what the are doing when they decide to have an abortion.  It is a violation of their rights to force them to undergo any kind of medical procedure.  As for the idiotic comments about guns, was it unlawful from women to carry a concealed weapon before while it was legal for men?  What a moronic example.  And your comments about Planned parenthood mimic the same lies that other of your ilk spread.  I have voted for Republicans.. for the US Senate, for Congress and for Governor of my state.  I will not vote for Walker because of his far right views; views that are out of touch with the American public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the "expectant mother" (Mother means she has or is having a child - not a fetus) can't have an ultrasound but the organ-harvesting doctor can use it to avoid damaging the organs?
Click to expand...

 
They can't have an ultrasound to accurately locate and determine fetal age....things which work in the interests of the pregnant women. But they use an ultrasound to navigate around the baby's body in order to avoid crushing the organs before they can extract them and sell them.

If you didn't think these people were callous to the predicament of the women they allegedly *serve* before, how there can be any doubt NOW...they are jeopardizing women in order to *harvest* organs. The good doctor talks about changing the procedure to accommodate greater dilation and a different method in order to harvest intact organs for sale. They put women at even HIGHER risk to accommodate harvest. They see these women as chattel, they always have. Their own personal money makers. Expendable and worthless in and of themselves. Their only value is in the $$ they generate.


----------



## Thunderbird

Some really horrible ghouls over at Planned Parenthood:


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Joey gets all upset when people don't take him serious.



Naw, I just find it hilarious you wingnuts get upset about medical waste when there are real children out there going to bed hungry at night.


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> 20 weeks old. you abortion lovers are sick



Only 1% of abortions happen after the 20th week.  

Most of those are deformed with genetic defects.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Well asshole...it isn't a fucking "tissue sample" she said hearts, livers, lungs.......that means a baby...not a zygote, not tissue, a baby human being is killed and then cut up for parts..........



Here's the thing, asshole. 

A 20 week fetus being aborted is usually aborted because it is deformed.  

And when a woman has to abort a pregnancy she probably wanted for valid medical reasons, they ask, "Is there some way that the tissues can do some good curing diseases and such." 

WHy, yes. Yes there is.  

Which matters not to the anti-abortion nuts, who don't really care about children when they snatch food from their mouths.


----------



## MisterBeale

Personally, I think when Planned Parenthood was forcibly sterilizing poor black women w/o their consent is when they should have been shut down.  That they would ever have been given another tax payer dime after that is a scandal.

Should society expect any better from such an organization?  Really?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> They are selling hearts, lungs, livers and who knows what else......they are killing babies and selling the parts....and this is just what they caught on video...imagine what they are doing that we have yet to find out about.......kermit goznell is going to turn out to not be alone.........



Okay, guy, again, not illegal to reimburse an abortion clinic for tissues OR for tissues to be donated to science with the consent of the patient.  

So you are getting upset about scientific practices that are perfectly legal.


----------



## JoeB131

longknife said:


> This is what happens to a society with atheist progressives force their agenda on the rest of us. I beg Sanger and her cohorts are chuckling with glee wherever they are - and I hope it's in the depth of hell where the rest of the PP butchers will end up.



Right. 

You know, we've been using fetal tissue for medical research since the 1930's, right?  

And we've found cures including Polio vaccines that were developed from fetal kidney tissue in 1954.  

The Ethics of Fetal Tissue Transplantation - Christian Research Institute


----------



## JoeB131




----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> The killing of children is considered even holier and more sacred to its disciples than gay marriage or genital mutilation. Like the primitive pagan cultures before them, liberalism looks upon the sacred rite of child sacrifice with a deep reverence. The liberal has a cult-like, religious devotion to sacrament of infanticide. Liberals will venerate it for the same reason Catholics venerate the Eucharist and Muslims the Koran — because it is the centerpiece of their worship, the core, the soul of the thing.



Wow, FatIrishSow has all sorts of hysterics on this issue.  

Reality- women got abortions before Roe v. Wade.  Women got abortions in the time of Jesus. 

The fact is, every attempt to ban abortion (unlike attempts to ban guns) have failed miserably.  

We can give you two modern examples. 

In 1967, Communist Romania attempted to ban abortion AND birth control in an attempt by their crazy dictator to double the population.  The birth rate spiked for one year.   Then an illegal abortion industry cropped up and birth rates dropped back below 1967 levels.  

www.ceausescu.org - the leading infosource on the web about Ceausescu and his era 

_Ceausescu made mockery of family planning. He forbade sex education. Books on human sexuality and reproduction were classified as "state secrets," to be used only as medical textbooks. With contraception banned, Romanians had to smuggle in condoms and birth-control pills. Though strictly illegal, abortions remained a widespread birth-control measure of last resort. Nationwide, Western sources estimate, 60 percent of all pregnancies ended in abortion or miscarriage.

The government's enforcement techniques were as bad as the law. Women under the age of 45 were rounded up at their workplaces every one to three months and taken to clinics, where they were examined for signs of pregnancy, often in the presence of government agents - dubbed the "menstrual police" by some Romanians. A pregnant woman who failed to "produce" a baby at the proper time could expect to be summoned for questioning. Women who miscarried were suspected of arranging an abortion. Some doctors resorted for forging statistics. "If a child died in our district, we lost 10 to 25 percent of our salary," says Dr. Geta Stanescu of Bucharest. "But it wasn't our fault: we had no medicine or milk, and the families were poor."
_
Another instructional example is the Philippines. 

Abortion in the Philippines a national secret Reuters


_Minda is a masseuse with a difference. Her caress is used to abort fetuses.

The 50-year-old grandmother has lost count of the number of pregnancies she has terminated in this largely Roman Catholic country where abortion is illegal and strictly taboo, but where about half a million women end their pregnancies every year.

Only one in four women have a surgical procedure according to the Guttmacher Institute. The 4,000-15,000 peso cost, usually in private clinics, is beyond the pockets of most women.

Over 30 percent ingest either cytotec, an anti-ulcer treatment they can buy in pharmacies, or herbal concoctions, often sold in stalls in front of churches._

Around 20 percent take hormonal drugs, or aspirin, as well as other medications and alcohol. Some starve themselves or fling themselves down stairs. Most women only succeed in ending their pregnancy after multiple attempts.


----------



## Mad Scientist

"I watched this video which was heavily edited to the point where you really didn't get the context, and you really can't tell what she was referring to."
- A Person Heavily in Denial

Let me help you Joe: She was talking about selling baby parts.

Got it now?


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Twenty four week old baby, I'm here to tell ya that is no embryo



did it live?  Because the survival rate at 24 weeks is only 39%.  Survival rate before 23 weeks is only 17% and survival rate before 22 weeks is only 5.  It's ZERO before 21 weeks.  

In addition, 25% of the ones who do survive have severe disabilities.  

Premature Birth and Viability Survival Statistics


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> "...According to science, conception marks the creation of a distinct human being, and, according to polls, strong majorities of American voters think that abortion should be illegal after the first three months of pregnancy.



So are there any other individual rights you want put up to a majority vote?


----------



## Mad Scientist

This is why you call it a "fetus", so you don't feel bad about killing and selling dead babies.


----------



## Manonthestreet




----------



## Manonthestreet

Mengle lives


----------



## Coyote

hadit said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is going to have.  She is expecting.  It isn't a person yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  The baby is not part of her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is until it can live without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.  Conjoined twins who cannot live without the other are considered separate persons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. Once they are born they are unique persons - conjoined or not.  It's also a false comparison.  Conjoined twins require each other to live.  A mother does not require the zygote, blastocyst or fetus in order to live and her body may expel it naturally at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So dependence is not a qualifier, good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to birth or viability - they are part of the mother's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, false.  The developing baby creates a filter to prevent mixing of blood between the two.  The baby has unique DNA and features.  He/she moves without the mother's control.  Tell you what, ask the next 100 pregnant women you see if what is growing inside of her is a part of her body or a baby.  See what they say.  Also, if you kill a pregnant woman, you can have multiple murder charges lodged against you.  That would be impossible if the developing baby is in fact merely a part of the mother's body.
Click to expand...


The DNA may be "unique" but it is still part of the mother's body until it is viable.  If it were not, then we could simply remove it from the host incubator and transplant it into someone else who wanted it.

That's simply the way it is.


----------



## Coyote

Manonthestreet said:


> Mengle lives



Another cheap and ignorant Nazi comparison?


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pro lifers amaze me.
> 
> Your argument can be completely destroyed and exposed for the ingnorant hysteria it really is.....
> 
> Then like a boomarang, you can just forget that all happened, and relax in your hyperbole of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go watch a partial birth abortion, and you'll never forget that it happened.    Do you know why you can watch ISIS murdering people on you tube, but not a partial birth abortion?  Because your hyperbole of bullshit, would never convince any human being with a conscience that it is ok to slit a baby's neck before the umbilical cord is cut.
> 
> A little education on what we can do to newborns because of the hyperbole of "I know my rights!"
> 
> Legal Affairs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty four week old baby, I'm here to tell ya that is no embryo
> 
> http://
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At 24 weeks a fetus is not an embryo, it is also considered viable.  Abortions are highly restricted in those cases and usually done for health or life of mother or severe fetal defects.
> 
> I'm still wondering about this claim of full-term abortions, and babies being born, killed and sold for body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm wondering about a lot of it. I need research when a liver and heart are viable. I should do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would research the facts first if I were you - thus far, they seem to be missing from much of the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point out anything I've said that isn't factual. I do my research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's just saying that so she can continue to try to justify baby killing.
Click to expand...


Let me know when you are willing to offer up your uterus for an unwanted fetus.  Until then, stay the hell out of other people's lives


----------



## Manonthestreet

Another cheap excuse making post for inexcuseable. Bet ya bushitlered too didnt ya


----------



## Coyote

Manonthestreet said:


> Another cheap excuse making post for inexcuseable. Bet ya bushitlered too didnt ya



You really ought to look up Mengele and the horrific experiments he conducted on living, thinking, aware human beings.

Ignorance is no excuse for cheap comparisons.


----------



## BullKurtz

JoeB131 said:


> I watched this video which was heavily edited to the point where you really didn't get the context, and you really can't tell what she was referring to.
> 
> She also had a glass of wine in front of her, and I have to wonder if she was a bit schnockered.



How do you think reporters get their targets to talk?   The context is clear...she's a baby parts wholesaler plain and simple...that should be a capital crime but the progs sniff, snort, and claim the murdered baby is a "lump of tissue" so who cares?


----------



## Manonthestreet

YOu are ignorant arent you.......those babies are just as alive dumbass


----------



## Coyote

Manonthestreet said:


> YOu are ignorant arent you.......those babies are just as alive dumbass



How aware is a zygote?


----------



## BullKurtz

Coyote said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are ignorant arent you.......those babies are just as alive dumbass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How aware is a zygote?
Click to expand...


How about partial-birth abortions...you don't believe that baby knows it's being murdered?


----------



## Manonthestreet

Lie to yourself all you want, this is on same level. BTW evil always progress' further  and further as is becoming evident.


----------



## Coyote

BullKurtz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are ignorant arent you.......those babies are just as alive dumbass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How aware is a zygote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about partial-birth abortions...you don't believe that baby knows it's being murdered?
Click to expand...


Partial-birth (or late term) abortions are very rare and strictly regulated (as it should be) - meaning it's usually done for the woman's health or life.

Given that - who would you rather kill - the fetus or the mother?


----------



## Coyote

Manonthestreet said:


> Lie to yourself all you want, this is on same level. BTW evil always progress' further  and further as is becoming evident.



False equivalency.


----------



## JoeB131

Mad Scientist said:


> This is why you call it a "fetus", so you don't feel bad about killing and selling dead babies.



NO, we call it a fetus because that's the proper technical term and even when a pregnancy is wanted, a miscarriage is never considered the same level of tragedy as the death of a child.


----------



## JoeB131

Mad Scientist said:


> "I watched this video which was heavily edited to the point where you really didn't get the context, and you really can't tell what she was referring to."
> - A Person Heavily in Denial
> 
> Let me help you Joe: She was talking about selling baby parts.
> 
> Got it now?



No, she was talking about providing voluntarily donated tissues for medical research.  

Research that saves thousands of lives.


----------



## BullKurtz

Coyote said:


> Partial-birth (or late term) abortions are very rare and strictly regulated (as it should be) - meaning it's usually done for the woman's health or life.
> 
> Given that - who would you rather kill - the fetus or the mother?



The mother...any woman who'd murder her own child deserves what she's willing to do....over 58,000,000 abortions in the US since Roe v Wade....the entire population of Canada is about 32,000,000...imagine the scientists, athletes, musicians, artists, etc etc who were betrayed by their own mothers....disgusting.


----------



## JoeB131

BullKurtz said:


> The mother...any woman who'd murder her own child deserves what she's willing to do....over 58,000,000 abortions in the US since Roe v Wade....the entire population of Canada is about 32,000,000...imagine the scientists, athletes, musicians, artists, etc etc who were betrayed by their own mothers....disgusting.



Okay, guy, you avoided Coyote's point. 

We did not have 58 million "partial birth abortions". 

Most abortions are performed between weeks 8-12 when the fetus is the size of a kidney bean and its pain receptors haven't been turned on yet.  

I know the thought of women controlling their own sexuality upsets you, but the dirty little secret is, they always have.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> toxicmedia said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pro lifers amaze me.
> 
> Your argument can be completely destroyed and exposed for the ingnorant hysteria it really is.....
> 
> Then like a boomarang, you can just forget that all happened, and relax in your hyperbole of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You go watch a partial birth abortion, and you'll never forget that it happened.    Do you know why you can watch ISIS murdering people on you tube, but not a partial birth abortion?  Because your hyperbole of bullshit, would never convince any human being with a conscience that it is ok to slit a baby's neck before the umbilical cord is cut.
> 
> A little education on what we can do to newborns because of the hyperbole of "I know my rights!"
> 
> Legal Affairs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> At 24 weeks a fetus is not an embryo, it is also considered viable.  Abortions are highly restricted in those cases and usually done for health or life of mother or severe fetal defects.
> 
> I'm still wondering about this claim of full-term abortions, and babies being born, killed and sold for body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm wondering about a lot of it. I need research when a liver and heart are viable. I should do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would research the facts first if I were you - thus far, they seem to be missing from much of the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point out anything I've said that isn't factual. I do my research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's just saying that so she can continue to try to justify baby killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when you are willing to offer up your uterus for an unwanted fetus.  Until then, stay the hell out of other people's lives
Click to expand...

Fuck off. When a child is created in my body I use my body to protect it. That's what a decent human does. You serve these women up on platters to PP to butcher and abuse for profit. Spare me your fake, self righteous posturing. You don't care about women,you justify the abuse of them.


----------



## Coyote

BullKurtz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Partial-birth (or late term) abortions are very rare and strictly regulated (as it should be) - meaning it's usually done for the woman's health or life.
> 
> Given that - who would you rather kill - the fetus or the mother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mother...any woman who'd murder her own child deserves what she's willing to do....over 58,000,000 abortions in the US since Roe v Wade....the entire population of Canada is about 32,000,000...imagine the scientists, athletes, musicians, artists, etc etc who were betrayed by their own mothers....disgusting.
Click to expand...


1.  So if one had to die, because late term abortions usually are done when the mother's life or health are in danger -you would insist it would be the mother.  Well, right there you are no better than those who say it should be the fetus.  Your choosing murder.

2.  imagine the Stalins, Hitlers, Pol Pot's, Tsarnaev's, etc who were betrayed by their own mothers's...;


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> You go watch a partial birth abortion, and you'll never forget that it happened.    Do you know why you can watch ISIS murdering people on you tube, but not a partial birth abortion?  Because your hyperbole of bullshit, would never convince any human being with a conscience that it is ok to slit a baby's neck before the umbilical cord is cut.
> 
> A little education on what we can do to newborns because of the hyperbole of "I know my rights!"
> 
> Legal Affairs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wondering about a lot of it. I need research when a liver and heart are viable. I should do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would research the facts first if I were you - thus far, they seem to be missing from much of the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please point out anything I've said that isn't factual. I do my research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's just saying that so she can continue to try to justify baby killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when you are willing to offer up your uterus for an unwanted fetus.  Until then, stay the hell out of other people's lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck off. When a child is created in my body I use my body to protect it. That's what a decent human does. You serve these women up on platters to PP to butcher and abuse for profit. Spare me your fake, self righteous posturing. You don't care about women,you justify the abuse of them.
Click to expand...


  you don't give a damn about the woman.  Your concern stops at birth.


----------



## koshergrl

And your PP doctor makes it very clear that they're doing a lot of late term abortions. We all know it. Racketeering....your heroes are gbouls a d criminals.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> And your PP doctor makes it very clear that they're doing a lot of late term abortions. We all know it. Racketeering....your heroes are gbouls a d criminals.



Umn no...she does not.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would research the facts first if I were you - thus far, they seem to be missing from much of the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please point out anything I've said that isn't factual. I do my research
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's just saying that so she can continue to try to justify baby killing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me know when you are willing to offer up your uterus for an unwanted fetus.  Until then, stay the hell out of other people's lives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck off. When a child is created in my body I use my body to protect it. That's what a decent human does. You serve these women up on platters to PP to butcher and abuse for profit. Spare me your fake, self righteous posturing. You don't care about women,you justify the abuse of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you don't give a damn about the woman.  Your concern stops at birth.
Click to expand...

Oh look another meme straight from the 'how to justify the exploitation of desperate women and make money off their plight' corner. Fuck off again. You support the butchery of them for profit. Tell me how that makes you superior to any rapist.


----------



## BullKurtz

Coyote said:


> 1.  So if one had to die, because late term abortions usually are done when the mother's life or health are in danger -you would insist it would be the mother.  Well, right there you are no better than those who say it should be the fetus.  Your choosing murder.
> 
> 2.  imagine the Stalins, Hitlers, Pol Pot's, Tsarnaev's, etc who were betrayed by their own mothers's...;



I don't accept your premise of it being a choice between the mother and the baby.  By the time a child is ready to present, with a heartbeat, a central nervous system, and functioning organs, to end its life by stabbing it in the head and vacuuming out it's brain, is murder plain and simple.

I have no idea why history's monsters (you've left out thousands of them) has anything to do with abortion...you're the one advocating for never knowing how the child might turn out.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your PP doctor makes it very clear that they're doing a lot of late term abortions. We all know it. Racketeering....your heroes are gbouls a d criminals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umn no...she does not.
Click to expand...

Yes, she does.


----------



## koshergrl

BullKurtz said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  So if one had to die, because late term abortions usually are done when the mother's life or health are in danger -you would insist it would be the mother.  Well, right there you are no better than those who say it should be the fetus.  Your choosing murder.
> 
> 2.  imagine the Stalins, Hitlers, Pol Pot's, Tsarnaev's, etc who were betrayed by their own mothers's...;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't accept your premise of it being a choice between the mother and the baby.  By the time a child is ready to present, with a heartbeat, a central nervous system, and functioning organs, to end its life by stabbing it in the head and vacuuming out it's brain, is murder plain and simple.
> 
> I have no idea why history's monsters (you've left out thousands of them) has anything to do with abortion...you're the one advocating for never knowing how the child might turn out.
Click to expand...

And victimizing desperate, pregnant women for profit.


----------



## BullKurtz

koshergrl said:


> And victimizing desperate, pregnant women for profit.



Many are little more than girls having a potentially dangerous procedure without their parent's consent when they can't get a tattoo or a belly button piercing at the same age.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote is pretending if pp wasn't there to kill full term babies, every sick pregnant woman would die because  doctors won't perform medically necessary abortions. It's a lid, of course. Pp doesn't perform medically necessary abortions...those are performed in hospitals by docs with admitting privileges. Pp performs elective abortions only.


----------



## koshergrl

BullKurtz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And victimizing desperate, pregnant women for profit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many are little more than girls having a potentially dangerous procedure without their parent's consent when they can't get a tattoo or a belly button piercing at the same age.
Click to expand...

Late term abortions are almost always coerced. But pp doesn't report the abusers, the traffickers, the pimps. Instead they enter into a contract with them and agree to further victimize the women and girls for profit. RACKETEERING.


----------



## BullKurtz

And let's be clear...the vast majority of abortions are performed on sport-fucking professional women who's career path would be inconvenienced by having a child.


----------



## Stephanie

Coyote said:


> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are ignorant arent you.......those babies are just as alive dumbass
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How aware is a zygote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about partial-birth abortions...you don't believe that baby knows it's being murdered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Partial-birth (or late term) abortions are very rare and strictly regulated (as it should be) - meaning it's usually done for the woman's health or life.
> 
> Given that - who would you rather kill - the fetus or the mother?
Click to expand...


holy smokes. women have died for their baby to LIVE. man that is callous as all get out. You can call them whatever make you feel good about aborting them. they are still your OFFSPRING you helped Create that you are sucking out of your body and life.


----------



## BullKurtz

Here's the numbers....read em and weep....seriously, this should make any living person sad enough to bawl their eyes out.  


Number of Abortions in US Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973


----------



## EverCurious

Global Child Death said:
			
		

> "A disproportionately heavy burden of child deaths weighs on families in eastern and southern Africa. Every day 5,500 children under the age of five die across the 21 countries of the region and the majority of the deaths are largely preventable." ~ 5 500 children die in Eastern and Southern Africa every day Press centre UNICEF
> 
> "Over a million African babies are estimated to die in the first 4 weeks of life..." ~ (PDF Report) http://www.who.int/pmnch/media/publications/aonsection_I.pdf
> 
> "The silent killers are poverty, hunger, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Despite the scale of this daily/ongoing catastrophe, it rarely manages to achieve, much less sustain, prime-time, headline coverage."  21,000 die every day ~ Today around 21 000 children died around the world Global Issues
> 
> "Every 15 seconds a child dies of hunger, says a campaign by charities urging G8 leaders to pledge more aid for the world's poorest families - or every 10 seconds, according to the latest version of the slogan. But does this paint an accurate picture?" ~ Does a child die of hunger every 10 seconds - BBC News
> 
> "Some 18,000 children die every day because of hunger and malnutrition and 850 million people go to bed every night with empty stomachs, a "terrible indictment of the world in 2007," the head of the U.N. food agency said." ~ 18 000 children die every day of hunger U.N. says - USATODAY.com
> 
> "Nearly two million children a year die for want of clean water and proper sanitation while the world's poor often pay more for their water than people in Britain or the US, according to a major new report." ~ Dirty water kills 5 000 children a day Business The Guardian



Those have far more impact if it's just about babies dying.


But lets talk about the US's babies ~ More US babies die on their first day than in 68 other countries report shows - NBC News

“The United States has the highest first-day death rate in the industrialized world. An estimated 11,300 newborn babies die each year in the United States on the day they are born. This is 50 percent more first-day deaths than all other industrialized countries combined.”

[...]

"Save the Children says it’s not precisely clear why the United States does so poorly in protecting newborns, but says politics and culture both play a role.

“Many babies in the United States are born too early. The U.S. preterm birth rate (1 in 8 births) is one of the highest in the industrialized world (second only to Cyprus). In fact, 130 countries from all across the world have lower preterm birth rates than the United States,” the report reads.

Teen births are partly to blame, the report says – echoing other research that has shown this. The U.S. has the highest teenage birth rate of any industrialized country.

“Teenage mothers in the U.S. tend to be poorer, less educated, and receive less prenatal care than older mothers. Because of these challenges, babies born to teen mothers are more likely to be low-birthweight and be born prematurely and to die in their first month. They are also more likely to suffer chronic medical conditions, do poorly in school, and give birth during their teen years (continuing the cycle of teen pregnancy),” the report says."

[...]

“Poverty, racism and stress are likely to be important contributing factors to first-day deaths in the United States and other industrialized countries.”

The March of Dimes, a charity that focuses on healthy births, says infant mortality fell by 12 percent between 2005 and 2011, and premature births have fallen by 8.5 percent since 2006. "This rate reduction has meant 125,000 fewer premature births and an estimated cost savings of about $2 billion," the group said in a statement. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 24,586 U.S. babies died before they turned 1 in 2010, compared to 23,910 in 2011."

[...]

"Half of all U.S. pregnancies are unplanned, another complicating factor, the report says. Women whose pregnancies are accidental are much less likely to take good care of themselves and to get thorough prenatal care, from vaccines to vitamins, that can protect the baby and her."


~ But ya know, who cares about the mother, who cares about the father, it's all about the unborn baby who /should/ have that chance to be abused while in the womb by a mother who wants nothing to do with them, then be born into a life of poverty and an inability for their parent(s) to care for them properly, if they even care to bother more than is necessary to keep CPS off their back. 

Oh adoption right?

"In the 1990s, there are approximately 120,000 adoptions of children each year. This number has remained fairly constant in the 1990s, and is still relatively proportionate to population size in the U.S.  104,000 children were adopted in 1986, 53,000 of whom were related adoptions and 51,000 of whom were unrelated. In addition, approximately 10,000 children were adopted from abroad, bringing the total number of unrelated adoptions to 61,000." ~ Adoption Statistics Numbers Trends

Bing says that "Just over 4 million babies are born in the United States each year,"  if we presume half of them are unplanned, that's 2 million, figure the majority of unplanned children /are/ kept (well cared for or not) but... only 120,000 ish are adopted, not being able to have kids is a bit of a rarity.  So who adopts these unwanted children?  No one, they get stuck with the parent who didn't want them but "dealt with it," usually in poverty and often neglected and/or abused.

~ Child Abuse Statistics Statistic Brain ~ 681,000 children annually are abused.  CPS is involved/investigates in 3.3 million children per year.  80% of children who die from abuse are under the age of 4.  Homeless youth that ran away to escape abuse %46.  80.9% of children are abused by a parent. 



What's the solution?  Failed abstinence policies, rejecting birth control, "hammering down" on abusive parents (after the fact of course)  Are you all entirely /sure/ it's a "good" thing for the children to force women to have children they don't want?


----------



## Stephanie

We wouldn't need Illegal immigrants for these politicians to beat us over the head with if those: 55 MILLIONS Abortions hadn't taken place since 1979

think about that one


----------



## BullKurtz

Stephanie said:


> We wouldn't need Illegal immigrants for these politicians to beat us over the head with if those: 55 MILLIONS Abortions hadn't taken place since 1979
> 
> think about that one


 58M


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

paddymurphy said:


> There is no difference and there is no "selling" of tissue or organs.  The fees discussed are the cost of removing and preserving the tissue for research.



It's no different than painting a car.  It's a sale


----------



## Political Junky

SassyIrishLass said:


> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*


The film is heavily edited.
With permission, some parts were donated just as people donate eyes, kidneys etc when they die.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta

Political Junky said:


> The film is heavily edited.



The usual excuse.  Explain the parts that weren't.


----------



## Marianne

SassyIrishLass said:


> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*


What! Those liberal paragons of virtue! Well I'm just shocked!


----------



## The Irish Ram

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well asshole...it isn't a fucking "tissue sample" she said hearts, livers, lungs.......that means a baby...not a zygote, not tissue, a baby human being is killed and then cut up for parts..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing, asshole.
> 
> A 20 week fetus being aborted is usually aborted because it is deformed.
> 
> And when a woman has to abort a pregnancy she probably wanted for valid medical reasons, they ask, "Is there some way that the tissues can do some good curing diseases and such."
> 
> WHy, yes. Yes there is.
> 
> Which matters not to the anti-abortion nuts, who don't really care about children when they snatch food from their mouths.
Click to expand...


Yes, I can't wait for school to start.  When the kids are out on the playground for recess, I run in and steal all of their lunches.  
If a woman is carrying a child and intends to birth it, and there is an abnormality, she goes to the hospital, or her Obgyn.   That is not the function of planned parenthood.  In fact that name is misleading.


----------



## TemplarKormac

They are clumps of cells in the womb, but can be easily harvested for human body parts. Isn't that quite the conundrum? Can someone explain that to me?


----------



## TemplarKormac

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/StemExpress-flyer.pdf


----------



## Vigilante

*Congresswoman in Tears Over Sale of Aborted Baby Body Parts “These are Babies for God’s Sake”*

lifenews.com ^ | Jul 15, 2015 | Steven Ertelt
Congresswoman Martha Roby of Alabama had just one minute to make her point on the floor of the House of Representatives today but she broke down in tears as she spoke for the millions of Americans who are outraged by the expose’ of Planned Parenthood selling the body parts of aborted babies. “This is one of those moments that — as a nation and as a people — we have to ask ourselves, ‘Who are we? Are we really going to tolerate this inhumanity?'” she asked, holding back tears. “Are we going to look the other way while babies are...


----------



## The Irish Ram

The problem is supply and demand.  As demand increases suppliers are going to do everything they can to meet the quota.


----------



## The Irish Ram

TemplarKormac said:


> They are clumps of cells in the womb, but can be easily harvested for human body parts. Isn't that quite the conundrum? Can someone explain that to me?



No, they are well into gestation and have specific organs to sell to the highest bidder.  hearts, not heart cells.  Livers, and kidneys.  While killing it they take care not to damage sellable parts.  Look at this term, partial birth.  Those are babies that are being born, fully formed babies, whose head and shoulders are out.  That's the hardest part for the woman. All that is left is a quick push and out the legs come and it's born.  We are talking about slitting the neck of that child  before that last push occurs.

One girl delivered her baby and then strangled it.  It wasn't considered murder because she killed it  on the bathroom floor, *before* she cut the cord.
If this is what is called an enlightened progressive society, then the future looks bleak.


----------



## Vigilante

*Useful Idiots: The Apologists for Planned Parenthood’s “Doctor of Death” Deborah Nucatola*

priestsforlife.org/kevin burke's blog ^ | July 15, 2015 | Kevin Burke
Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin used the term “polyezniy idiot” or “useful idiot” to describe sympathizers in the West who blindly supported Communist leaders.] There is rapidly spreading firestorm surrounding the video of Dr Deborah Nucatola, the medical director of Planned Parenthood. The video shows her enjoying her salad and red wine as she describes the harvesting of aborted pre-born human organs and body parts for sale to bio-medical companies. What is perhaps even more disturbing, are some of the responses from those that serve as apologist for Planned Parenthood. This from Amanda Marcotte at Slate: As someone who is...


----------



## The Irish Ram

You know what is amazing to me is it's not the slitting of the throats, or the crushing of the heads of those infants, but what is done with the remains that causes tears and anger.  Why?  Do they suddenly deserve respect?  But not enough to let them take their first breath?


----------



## Vigilante

*Democrats Defend Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies*

lifenews.com ^ | Jul 15, 2015 | Steven Ertelt
Planned Parenthood’s best friends in Congress are rushing to the defense of the abortion business today after a shocking expose’ video caught its top doctor discussing how the abortion company is involved in the sale of body parts from babies victimized by abortions. New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted unborn children and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts. In the video, Nucatola is at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human...


----------



## Vigilante

*Boehner Orders Congressional Hearings After Planned Parenthood Sting Video *
‎
dailycaller.com ^ | 07/15/2015 | Alex Pappas
Speaker of the House John Boehner on Wednesday called for congressional hearings into the practices of Planned Parenthood — and one House committee confirmed it will investigate the organization. The video showed a top Planned Parenthood doctor admitting clinics routinely sell body parts after abortions. “When an organization monetizes an unborn child — and with the cavalier attitude portrayed in this horrific video — we must all act,” Boehner said.


----------



## Vigilante

*Megyn Kelly and Dana Loesch DESTROY Democrat DEFENDING Planned Parenthood’s baby organ harvesting*

Right Scoop ^ | 7/15/15 | soopermexican
If you haven’t seen the horrific video where a Planned Parenthood official gleefully admits to chopping up aborted children so that she could sell their organs and tissues, we have it here. While the left defend Planned Parenthood by saying the video was deceptively edited, Megyn Kelly and Dana Loesch took on a Democratic consultant in an attempt to explain how the official’s very own words condemn the organization. Watch below: (video at link)


----------



## Vigilante

*The Retail Value of Fetal Organs Harvested by Planned Parenthood*

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/14/the-retail-value-of-fetal-organs-harvested-by-planned-parenthood/ ^ | 7-14-2015
An undercover investigation of Planned Parenthood has turned up evidence that it sold “intact” fetal organs to at least one California company known as Stem Express... However, she added that the national organization does not offer clients a “menu” because their own lawyers don’t, “want us to be the middle people for this issue right now.” Dr. Nucatola then mentions that another buyer called Stem Express had approached them with the same request. Stem Express is a California-based company started in 2010. Its website was apparently put into a maintenance mode on Tuesday after the story broke. However, the Internet...


----------



## Vigilante

*Hillary Clinton Ignores Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies*

LifeNews.com ^ | July 15, 2015 | by STEVEN ERTELT
Nothing from her campaign, nothing on Facebook, nothing on Twitter, and no response to media queries to Hillary Clinton about the expose’ video showing the Planned Parenthood abortion business selling the body parts of aborted babies. Apparently Hillary Clinton doesn’t remember when she received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award with pride, even calling Margaret Sanger someone she “admired enormously.” During the event, Clinton said that emphasizing and promoting abortion is a key issue and she also defended taxpayer funded abortions for poor women. (Boy, can't them POOR WOMEN just fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and......)


----------



## Interpol

toxicmedia said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> I can't find anything about this online, except from every pro life web site on the planet.
> 
> When I back out of the outrage and hasty judgments the pro life industry wants me to have...I start to ask myself why this is different from people dying in traffic accidents and donating their organs.
> 
> I guess what pro lifers want implied here, is that Planned Parenthood is aborting fetuses, for parts, which would otherwise NOT have been aborted. I don't see any evidence that this is the case.
> 
> If you had a child born with a bad liver, or heart, wouldn't this be a good thing?
Click to expand...



That's exactly right. The lives of more vulnerable infants have been saved or improved by the same measures we use when people die in every other way. 

I suppose the implication is that Planned Parenthood is somehow kidnapping women and forcing them to have abortions so they can make money from baby parts, but that would come from a pretty deranged mind then because it has no basis in lived reality.


----------



## JoeB131

The Irish Ram said:


> Yes, I can't wait for school to start. When the kids are out on the playground for recess, I run in and steal all of their lunches.



Don't be dishonest. You nuts have no problem cutting food stamps and school lunches.  

If a woman is carrying a child and intends to birth it, and there is an abnormality, she goes to the hospital, or her Obgyn. That is not the function of planned parenthood. In fact that name is misleading.[/QUOTE]

Thanks to the nuttiness of the anti-choice types who MURDER abortion doctors, PP is often the only place women can secure abortions. Most OB/GYN don't perform abortions or aren't set up to do late procedures.


----------



## JoeB131

The Irish Ram said:


> You know what is amazing to me is it's not the slitting of the throats, or the crushing of the heads of those infants, but what is done with the remains that causes tears and anger. Why? Do they suddenly deserve respect? But not enough to let them take their first breath?



actually, the disposition of medical waste doesn't bother me, either.  It's medical waste, it doesn't deserve respect.   Unless it finds a cure to a disease using it. 

You don't like abortion, don't have one.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“You don't like abortion, don't have one.”

That's not good enough.

Most on the ridiculous right want everyone to be compelled to believe as they do through force of law, increasing the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Political Junky said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> The film is heavily edited.
> With permission, some parts were donated just as people donate eyes, kidneys etc when they die.
Click to expand...


Keep screaming that. "the video was heavily edited!!!!!"  I believe that's the best talking point you all can come up with. Fools


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what is amazing to me is it's not the slitting of the throats, or the crushing of the heads of those infants, but what is done with the remains that causes tears and anger. Why? Do they suddenly deserve respect? But not enough to let them take their first breath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, the disposition of medical waste doesn't bother me, either.  It's medical waste, it doesn't deserve respect.   Unless it finds a cure to a disease using it.
> 
> You don't like abortion, don't have one.
Click to expand...


You're a sick bastard


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Keep screaming that. "the video was heavily edited!!!!!" I believe that's the best talking point you all can come up with. Fools



Well, I think that about covers it, since you took out all the parts where she explicitly says that PP doesn't broker tissues, and that tissues are only donated with the consent of the patient. 

If only you people showed as much concern for real poor children who go to bed hungry at night than you do for the disposition of medical waste, I'd be impressed.


----------



## mudwhistle

The left will defend anything......absolutely anything.....as long as it's a liberal Democrat doing it. This ghoulish behavior is despicable. One member stated that people donate organs.....but that's something they have to grant permission for. In this case nobody gave them permission. I see little difference between this and digging up bodies from the grave like Frankenstein.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what is amazing to me is it's not the slitting of the throats, or the crushing of the heads of those infants, but what is done with the remains that causes tears and anger. Why? Do they suddenly deserve respect? But not enough to let them take their first breath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, the disposition of medical waste doesn't bother me, either.  It's medical waste, it doesn't deserve respect.   Unless it finds a cure to a disease using it.
> 
> You don't like abortion, don't have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a sick bastard
Click to expand...


And twisted, too.  but it doesn't take away from my point.  

This is medical waste.  It's not people.  If a woman is having an abortion at 20 weeks, it's because something in the pregnancy has gone horribly wrong, and they are trying to find something good in a tragedy by donating tissues to help cure diseases. 

We have polio vaccines today because someone used fetal tissue to find them.


----------



## JoeB131

mudwhistle said:


> The left will defend anything......absolutely anything.....as long as it's a liberal Democrat doing it. This ghoulish behavior is despicable. One member stated that people donate organs.....but that's something they have to grant permission for. In this case nobody gave them permission.



Yes, the woman who the fetus was extracted from gave permission.  

The problem is you want to think that the fetus is a separate person from the woman it's inside.


----------



## strollingbones

has anyone watched the entire video....defending the truth should not be partisan


----------



## Care4all

Vigilante said:


> *Hillary Clinton Ignores Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies*
> 
> LifeNews.com ^ | July 15, 2015 | by STEVEN ERTELT
> Nothing from her campaign, nothing on Facebook, nothing on Twitter, and no response to media queries to Hillary Clinton about the expose’ video showing the Planned Parenthood abortion business selling the body parts of aborted babies. Apparently Hillary Clinton doesn’t remember when she received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award with pride, even calling Margaret Sanger someone she “admired enormously.” During the event, Clinton said that emphasizing and promoting abortion is a key issue and she also defended taxpayer funded abortions for poor women. (Boy, can't them POOR WOMEN just fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and......)



from your article link:
The sale of fetal body parts is illegal in the United States, *however, the law outlawing it does allow for companies to charge for processing and shipping costs of those organs/tissues*. In a statement issued after the video was released, Planned Parenthood stated, “At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood.”



And FYI, Margaret Sanger did NOT support abortion when she was alive, she supported BIRTH CONTROL, and teaching birth control to poor families so they could prevent their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child....from being conceived.

There was no birth control pills in her day either...(till near the end of her life)


----------



## strollingbones

o dont confuse them with facts.....


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Now they have switched gears from "heavily edited video" to "it's a humanitarian undertaking". Defund and prosecute the ghouls

*New Planned Parenthood spin: Organ harvesting, sales “a humanitarian undertaking”*

Has there been any more dire need of PR flacks than Planned Parenthood’s after yesterday’s undercover video? The media sat in stunned silence for hours afterward, awaiting signals on how to proceed with coverage. Their first internal attempt at spin turned out to be a hot mess, so they began to bring in the consultants. Mark Hemingway at The Weekly Standard brings usthe delightful Take Two:

Aborted pregnancy tissue donation and research are humanitarian undertakings that hold the potential to cure disease, save lives, and ameliorate suffering. Some providers choose to offer this service to patients; in some cases patients are seeking tissue donation, and in other cases patients are informed of the option and choose tissue donation.

“Undertakings”? _Oh, my_. Perhaps someone needs a new thesaurus, but “undertakings” is exactly the business of Planned Parenthood in the hundreds of thousands a year

New Planned Parenthood spin Organ harvesting sales a humanitarian undertaking Hot Air


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Now they have switched gears from "heavily edited video" to "it's a humanitarian undertaking". Defund and prosecute the ghouls
> 
> :



It is an humanitarian undertaking. 

A lot of cures for diseases in REAL PEOPLE are developed from fetal cell tissue.  

Cell tissue that would be thrown away otherwise. 

Of do you really think there are women out there getting pregnant and have third trimester abortions so they can get that whopping $30.00 transportation fee?


----------



## JoeB131

Polio used to kill thousands of Americans. Then in 1954, they developed the first Polio Vaccine from fetal kidney cells.  The incidence dropped from 20,000 cases a year in the US to less than 2000 in 1958.   the disease had disappeared completely in the US by 1980.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now they have switched gears from "heavily edited video" to "it's a humanitarian undertaking". Defund and prosecute the ghouls
> 
> :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an humanitarian undertaking.
> 
> A lot of cures for diseases in REAL PEOPLE are developed from fetal cell tissue.
> 
> Cell tissue that would be thrown away otherwise.
> 
> Of do you really think there are women out there getting pregnant and have third trimester abortions so they can get that whopping $30.00 transportation fee?
Click to expand...


Go back o bed, you annoy me


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Go back o bed, you annoy me



You amuse me, because I wonder how hard you have to work to stay ignorant. 

Do you really think PP is kidnapping women off the street?  I'm just wondering how you think this sensible acquisition of medical cells works, exactly.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back o bed, you annoy me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You amuse me, because I wonder how hard you have to work to stay ignorant.
> 
> Do you really think PP is kidnapping women off the street?  I'm just wondering how you think this sensible acquisition of medical cells works, exactly.
Click to expand...


Dude, GFY. I'm sick of your "I'm the smartest person in the room". You're not, you're just another loudmouth left loon. That's it


----------



## JoeMoma

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now they have switched gears from "heavily edited video" to "it's a humanitarian undertaking". Defund and prosecute the ghouls
> 
> :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an humanitarian undertaking.
> 
> A lot of cures for diseases in REAL PEOPLE are developed from fetal cell tissue.
> 
> Cell tissue that would be thrown away otherwise.
> 
> Of do you really think there are women out there getting pregnant and have third trimester abortions so they can get that whopping $30.00 transportation fee?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back o bed, you annoy me
Click to expand...

It's a $30 to $100 fee per part.  And this is on top of the already paid for abortion. An aborted fetus that has several intact organs could be worth hundreds of bucks.

Is planned parenthood making a profit on this?  It will take a audit to find out.


----------



## Katzndogz

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back o bed, you annoy me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You amuse me, because I wonder how hard you have to work to stay ignorant.
> 
> Do you really think PP is kidnapping women off the street?  I'm just wondering how you think this sensible acquisition of medical cells works, exactly.
Click to expand...

PP made kidnapping pregnant women off the street profitable.


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> Defund and prosecute the ghouls



That the nub of it isn't it?

Use a highly doctored video to spark phony outrage so Congress will be compelled to act on emotion rather than reason.  Like the boy who cried wolf, you Fauxraged type have gone to the well one too many times.


----------



## hadit

Coyote said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  The baby is not part of her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is until it can live without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.  Conjoined twins who cannot live without the other are considered separate persons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. Once they are born they are unique persons - conjoined or not.  It's also a false comparison.  Conjoined twins require each other to live.  A mother does not require the zygote, blastocyst or fetus in order to live and her body may expel it naturally at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So dependence is not a qualifier, good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to birth or viability - they are part of the mother's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, false.  The developing baby creates a filter to prevent mixing of blood between the two.  The baby has unique DNA and features.  He/she moves without the mother's control.  Tell you what, ask the next 100 pregnant women you see if what is growing inside of her is a part of her body or a baby.  See what they say.  Also, if you kill a pregnant woman, you can have multiple murder charges lodged against you.  That would be impossible if the developing baby is in fact merely a part of the mother's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The DNA may be "unique" but it is still part of the mother's body until it is viable.  If it were not, then we could simply remove it from the host incubator and transplant it into someone else who wanted it.
> 
> That's simply the way it is.
Click to expand...

Remember, we established that dependency is not a qualifier, or Christopher Reeve would have become a part of his respirator and lost his personhood because he could not live without it.


----------



## Darkwind

Funny how those clumps of cells suddenly have livers and kidneys and hearts.....I wonder how that happened?


----------



## Vigilante

Care4all said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hillary Clinton Ignores Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies*
> 
> LifeNews.com ^ | July 15, 2015 | by STEVEN ERTELT
> Nothing from her campaign, nothing on Facebook, nothing on Twitter, and no response to media queries to Hillary Clinton about the expose’ video showing the Planned Parenthood abortion business selling the body parts of aborted babies. Apparently Hillary Clinton doesn’t remember when she received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award with pride, even calling Margaret Sanger someone she “admired enormously.” During the event, Clinton said that emphasizing and promoting abortion is a key issue and she also defended taxpayer funded abortions for poor women. (Boy, can't them POOR WOMEN just fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and......)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from your article link:
> The sale of fetal body parts is illegal in the United States, *however, the law outlawing it does allow for companies to charge for processing and shipping costs of those organs/tissues*. In a statement issued after the video was released, Planned Parenthood stated, “At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood.”
> 
> 
> 
> And FYI, Margaret Sanger did NOT support abortion when she was alive, she supported BIRTH CONTROL, and teaching birth control to poor families so they could prevent their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child....from being conceived.
> 
> There was no birth control pills in her day either....
Click to expand...


Well C4A, try this and tell me what you think!

Margaret-Sanger The Negro-Project


----------



## BullKurtz

BlindBoo said:


> That the nub of it isn't it?
> 
> Use a highly doctored video to spark phony outrage so Congress will be compelled to act on emotion rather than reason.  Like the boy who cried wolf, you Fauxraged type have gone to the well one too many times.



What's "highly doctored" about the video....do you think she would have opened up about their hideous practice if she knew she was on camera?  Of course it was edited....was it necessary to watch her eating her entire salad and talking with her mouth full until she said something revealing?  Any sting operation is usually accompanied by this kind of grainy, poorly lit footage because a hidden camera has to be used.


----------



## Care4all

Vigilante said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hillary Clinton Ignores Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies*
> 
> LifeNews.com ^ | July 15, 2015 | by STEVEN ERTELT
> Nothing from her campaign, nothing on Facebook, nothing on Twitter, and no response to media queries to Hillary Clinton about the expose’ video showing the Planned Parenthood abortion business selling the body parts of aborted babies. Apparently Hillary Clinton doesn’t remember when she received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award with pride, even calling Margaret Sanger someone she “admired enormously.” During the event, Clinton said that emphasizing and promoting abortion is a key issue and she also defended taxpayer funded abortions for poor women. (Boy, can't them POOR WOMEN just fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and......)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from your article link:
> The sale of fetal body parts is illegal in the United States, *however, the law outlawing it does allow for companies to charge for processing and shipping costs of those organs/tissues*. In a statement issued after the video was released, Planned Parenthood stated, “At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood.”
> 
> 
> 
> And FYI, Margaret Sanger did NOT support abortion when she was alive, she supported BIRTH CONTROL, and teaching birth control to poor families so they could prevent their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child....from being conceived.
> 
> There was no birth control pills in her day either....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well C4A, try this and tell me what you think!
> 
> Margaret-Sanger The Negro-Project
Click to expand...


Yes, some of the quotes on that page about her and her thoughts makes her sound like a racist....but this was not uncommon in the era that she lived...congress even funded her projects and causes, with full support....who would have thunk it?  I will say that I have seen information refuting some of the stuff said on that site, with references as well....it's neither here or there....

How do you feel about Birth control?  Are you against it?  Are you against providing tax monies to the poorest among us to support, as example, their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child?  Or do YOU side with Sanger on that...?

I can't tell you how many times posters that are conservative have posted that women SHOULD TAKE Birth control to prevent themselves from getting pregnant and having another baby on welfare....  at least a few hundred of those kind of comments here on USMB over the years I have been here from Republicans/conservatives/right wingers....which is in agreement with Sanger....

Do you support Margaret Sanger's cause, of educating and providing birth control/ information to those who can not afford to have more children than they already have....or that they can support?  If so, then you are a Sanger supporter as well....


----------



## Care4all

Vigilante said:


> *Boehner Orders Congressional Hearings After Planned Parenthood Sting Video *
> ‎
> dailycaller.com ^ | 07/15/2015 | Alex Pappas
> Speaker of the House John Boehner on Wednesday called for congressional hearings into the practices of Planned Parenthood — and one House committee confirmed it will investigate the organization. The video showed a top Planned Parenthood doctor admitting clinics routinely sell body parts after abortions. “When an organization monetizes an unborn child — and with the cavalier attitude portrayed in this horrific video — we must all act,” Boehner said.


OF COURSE he did, an election is coming up...gotta have those non effective hearings that accomplish nothing in the end...to keep the prolifer's attention...

charging $30 to $100 for shipping and handling, is not for "profit"....

When I worked in a non profit/(donated blood only with no paid blood donors), Community Blood Center decades ago....we charged hospitals $70 (back in the 1980's) for shipping and handling per unit of whole blood.


----------



## depotoo

Sanger's motives ran much deeper than that and if you are honest and cared enough to research her writings, you know that.  Just find my posts in this thread where I have posted some of them and try to defend her after that.
Here is one for you, let's see you defend it-
"Today all classes in all countries try to exercise some control in regulating the size of their families. It is only the unfit, the less desirable, who procreate recklessly and without forethought or care. "






Care4all said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hillary Clinton Ignores Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies*
> 
> LifeNews.com ^ | July 15, 2015 | by STEVEN ERTELT
> Nothing from her campaign, nothing on Facebook, nothing on Twitter, and no response to media queries to Hillary Clinton about the expose’ video showing the Planned Parenthood abortion business selling the body parts of aborted babies. Apparently Hillary Clinton doesn’t remember when she received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award with pride, even calling Margaret Sanger someone she “admired enormously.” During the event, Clinton said that emphasizing and promoting abortion is a key issue and she also defended taxpayer funded abortions for poor women. (Boy, can't them POOR WOMEN just fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and......)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from your article link:
> The sale of fetal body parts is illegal in the United States, *however, the law outlawing it does allow for companies to charge for processing and shipping costs of those organs/tissues*. In a statement issued after the video was released, Planned Parenthood stated, “At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood.”
> 
> 
> 
> And FYI, Margaret Sanger did NOT support abortion when she was alive, she supported BIRTH CONTROL, and teaching birth control to poor families so they could prevent their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child....from being conceived.
> 
> There was no birth control pills in her day either....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well C4A, try this and tell me what you think!
> 
> Margaret-Sanger The Negro-Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some of the quotes on that page about her and her thoughts makes her sound like a racist....but this was not uncommon in the era that she lived...congress even funded her projects and causes, with full support....who would have thunk it?  I will say that I have seen information refuting some of the stuff said on that site, with references as well....it's neither here or there....
> 
> How do you feel about Birth control?  Are you against it?  Are you against providing tax monies to the poorest among us to support, as example, their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child?  Or do YOU side with Sanger on that...?
> 
> I can't tell you how many times posters that are conservative have posted that women SHOULD TAKE Birth control to prevent themselves from getting pregnant and having another baby on welfare....  at least a few hundred of those kind of comments here on USMB over the years I have been here from Republicans/conservatives/right wingers....which is in agreement with Sanger....
> 
> Do you support Margaret Sanger's cause, of educating and providing birth control/ information to those who can not afford to have more children than they already have....or that they can support?  If so, then you are a Sanger supporter as well....
Click to expand...


----------



## paddymurphy

depotoo said:


> Sanger's motives ran much deeper than that and if you are honest and cared enough to research her writings, you know that.  Just find my posts in this thread where I have posted some of them and try to defend her after that.
> Here is one for you, let's see you defend it-
> "Today all classes in all countries try to exercise some control in regulating the size of their families. It is only the unfit, the less desirable, who procreate recklessly and without forethought or care. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hillary Clinton Ignores Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies*
> 
> LifeNews.com ^ | July 15, 2015 | by STEVEN ERTELT
> Nothing from her campaign, nothing on Facebook, nothing on Twitter, and no response to media queries to Hillary Clinton about the expose’ video showing the Planned Parenthood abortion business selling the body parts of aborted babies. Apparently Hillary Clinton doesn’t remember when she received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award with pride, even calling Margaret Sanger someone she “admired enormously.” During the event, Clinton said that emphasizing and promoting abortion is a key issue and she also defended taxpayer funded abortions for poor women. (Boy, can't them POOR WOMEN just fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and......)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from your article link:
> The sale of fetal body parts is illegal in the United States, *however, the law outlawing it does allow for companies to charge for processing and shipping costs of those organs/tissues*. In a statement issued after the video was released, Planned Parenthood stated, “At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood.”
> 
> 
> 
> And FYI, Margaret Sanger did NOT support abortion when she was alive, she supported BIRTH CONTROL, and teaching birth control to poor families so they could prevent their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child....from being conceived.
> 
> There was no birth control pills in her day either....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well C4A, try this and tell me what you think!
> 
> Margaret-Sanger The Negro-Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some of the quotes on that page about her and her thoughts makes her sound like a racist....but this was not uncommon in the era that she lived...congress even funded her projects and causes, with full support....who would have thunk it?  I will say that I have seen information refuting some of the stuff said on that site, with references as well....it's neither here or there....
> 
> How do you feel about Birth control?  Are you against it?  Are you against providing tax monies to the poorest among us to support, as example, their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child?  Or do YOU side with Sanger on that...?
> 
> I can't tell you how many times posters that are conservative have posted that women SHOULD TAKE Birth control to prevent themselves from getting pregnant and having another baby on welfare....  at least a few hundred of those kind of comments here on USMB over the years I have been here from Republicans/conservatives/right wingers....which is in agreement with Sanger....
> 
> Do you support Margaret Sanger's cause, of educating and providing birth control/ information to those who can not afford to have more children than they already have....or that they can support?  If so, then you are a Sanger supporter as well....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Sounds like something Trump would say about Mexicans.  If you take a quote out of context of the time it was made and out of context of the rest of the writing, you can make it look like anything.  Her overall theme was that poor women having child after child perpetuated poverty and illness. Republicans say the very same thing about african american women and poor people in general.  She never advocated for abortion; only birth control.  She correctly noted that allowing women to control the number of children they had would greatly increase the chances that the family could rise out of poverty.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what is amazing to me is it's not the slitting of the throats, or the crushing of the heads of those infants, but what is done with the remains that causes tears and anger. Why? Do they suddenly deserve respect? But not enough to let them take their first breath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, the disposition of medical waste doesn't bother me, either.  It's medical waste, it doesn't deserve respect.   Unless it finds a cure to a disease using it.
> 
> You don't like abortion, don't have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a sick bastard
Click to expand...

Given your posting history of hate, you're in no position to call anyone "sick."


----------



## SassyIrishLass

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what is amazing to me is it's not the slitting of the throats, or the crushing of the heads of those infants, but what is done with the remains that causes tears and anger. Why? Do they suddenly deserve respect? But not enough to let them take their first breath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, the disposition of medical waste doesn't bother me, either.  It's medical waste, it doesn't deserve respect.   Unless it finds a cure to a disease using it.
> 
> You don't like abortion, don't have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a sick bastard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your posting history of hate, you're in no position to call anyone "sick."
Click to expand...


GFY


----------



## depotoo

paddymurphy said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanger's motives ran much deeper than that and if you are honest and cared enough to research her writings, you know that.  Just find my posts in this thread where I have posted some of them and try to defend her after that.
> Here is one for you, let's see you defend it-
> "Today all classes in all countries try to exercise some control in regulating the size of their families. It is only the unfit, the less desirable, who procreate recklessly and without forethought or care. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hillary Clinton Ignores Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies*
> 
> LifeNews.com ^ | July 15, 2015 | by STEVEN ERTELT
> Nothing from her campaign, nothing on Facebook, nothing on Twitter, and no response to media queries to Hillary Clinton about the expose’ video showing the Planned Parenthood abortion business selling the body parts of aborted babies. Apparently Hillary Clinton doesn’t remember when she received Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award with pride, even calling Margaret Sanger someone she “admired enormously.” During the event, Clinton said that emphasizing and promoting abortion is a key issue and she also defended taxpayer funded abortions for poor women. (Boy, can't them POOR WOMEN just fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and fuck, and......)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from your article link:
> The sale of fetal body parts is illegal in the United States, *however, the law outlawing it does allow for companies to charge for processing and shipping costs of those organs/tissues*. In a statement issued after the video was released, Planned Parenthood stated, “At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood.”
> 
> 
> 
> And FYI, Margaret Sanger did NOT support abortion when she was alive, she supported BIRTH CONTROL, and teaching birth control to poor families so they could prevent their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child....from being conceived.
> 
> There was no birth control pills in her day either....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well C4A, try this and tell me what you think!
> 
> Margaret-Sanger The Negro-Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some of the quotes on that page about her and her thoughts makes her sound like a racist....but this was not uncommon in the era that she lived...congress even funded her projects and causes, with full support....who would have thunk it?  I will say that I have seen information refuting some of the stuff said on that site, with references as well....it's neither here or there....
> 
> How do you feel about Birth control?  Are you against it?  Are you against providing tax monies to the poorest among us to support, as example, their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child?  Or do YOU side with Sanger on that...?
> 
> I can't tell you how many times posters that are conservative have posted that women SHOULD TAKE Birth control to prevent themselves from getting pregnant and having another baby on welfare....  at least a few hundred of those kind of comments here on USMB over the years I have been here from Republicans/conservatives/right wingers....which is in agreement with Sanger....
> 
> Do you support Margaret Sanger's cause, of educating and providing birth control/ information to those who can not afford to have more children than they already have....or that they can support?  If so, then you are a Sanger supporter as well....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like something Trump would say about Mexicans.  If you take a quote out of context of the time it was made and out of context of the rest of the writing, you can make it look like anything.  Her overall theme was that poor women having child after child perpetuated poverty and illness. Republicans say the very same thing about african american women and poor people in general.  She never advocated for abortion; only birth control.  She correctly noted that allowing women to control the number of children they had would greatly increase the chances that the family could rise out of poverty.
Click to expand...

Honey, it is not out of context.  It is what  Sanger/Slee believed.  For anyone who takes the time to read all her articles, speeches through her years will find the same theme popping up throughout.  
The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger Web Edition


----------



## BlindBoo

SassyIrishLass said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what is amazing to me is it's not the slitting of the throats, or the crushing of the heads of those infants, but what is done with the remains that causes tears and anger. Why? Do they suddenly deserve respect? But not enough to let them take their first breath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, the disposition of medical waste doesn't bother me, either.  It's medical waste, it doesn't deserve respect.   Unless it finds a cure to a disease using it.
> 
> You don't like abortion, don't have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a sick bastard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your posting history of hate, you're in no position to call anyone "sick."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GFY
Click to expand...


----------



## depotoo

From her book Woman and the New Race

While unknowingly laying the foundations of tyrannies and providing the human tinder for racial conflagrations, woman was also unknowingly creating slums, filling asylums with Insane, and institutions with other defectives. She was replenishing the ranks of the prostitutes, furnishing grist for the criminal courts and inmates for prisons.  Had she planned deliberately to achieve thls tragic total of human waste and misery, she could hardly have done it more effectively.


----------



## paddymurphy

depotoo said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanger's motives ran much deeper than that and if you are honest and cared enough to research her writings, you know that.  Just find my posts in this thread where I have posted some of them and try to defend her after that.
> Here is one for you, let's see you defend it-
> "Today all classes in all countries try to exercise some control in regulating the size of their families. It is only the unfit, the less desirable, who procreate recklessly and without forethought or care. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> from your article link:
> The sale of fetal body parts is illegal in the United States, *however, the law outlawing it does allow for companies to charge for processing and shipping costs of those organs/tissues*. In a statement issued after the video was released, Planned Parenthood stated, “At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood.”
> 
> 
> 
> And FYI, Margaret Sanger did NOT support abortion when she was alive, she supported BIRTH CONTROL, and teaching birth control to poor families so they could prevent their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child....from being conceived.
> 
> There was no birth control pills in her day either....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well C4A, try this and tell me what you think!
> 
> Margaret-Sanger The Negro-Project
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, some of the quotes on that page about her and her thoughts makes her sound like a racist....but this was not uncommon in the era that she lived...congress even funded her projects and causes, with full support....who would have thunk it?  I will say that I have seen information refuting some of the stuff said on that site, with references as well....it's neither here or there....
> 
> How do you feel about Birth control?  Are you against it?  Are you against providing tax monies to the poorest among us to support, as example, their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child?  Or do YOU side with Sanger on that...?
> 
> I can't tell you how many times posters that are conservative have posted that women SHOULD TAKE Birth control to prevent themselves from getting pregnant and having another baby on welfare....  at least a few hundred of those kind of comments here on USMB over the years I have been here from Republicans/conservatives/right wingers....which is in agreement with Sanger....
> 
> Do you support Margaret Sanger's cause, of educating and providing birth control/ information to those who can not afford to have more children than they already have....or that they can support?  If so, then you are a Sanger supporter as well....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like something Trump would say about Mexicans.  If you take a quote out of context of the time it was made and out of context of the rest of the writing, you can make it look like anything.  Her overall theme was that poor women having child after child perpetuated poverty and illness. Republicans say the very same thing about african american women and poor people in general.  She never advocated for abortion; only birth control.  She correctly noted that allowing women to control the number of children they had would greatly increase the chances that the family could rise out of poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honey, it is not out of context.  It is what  Sanger/Slee believed.  For anyone who takes the time to read all her articles, speeches through her years will find the same theme popping up throughout.
> The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger Web Edition
Click to expand...

As if you read a single fucking word of those writings.  Had you done so, you would realize the truth of what I posted.


----------



## paddymurphy

depotoo said:


> From her book Woman and the New Race
> 
> While unknowingly laying the foundations of tyrannies and providing the human tinder for racial conflagrations, woman was also unknowingly creating slums, filling asylums with Insane, and institutions with other defectives. She was replenishing the ranks of the prostitutes, furnishing grist for the criminal courts and inmates for prisons.  Had she planned deliberately to achieve thls tragic total of human waste and misery, she could hardly have done it more effectively.


Wow, another quote one would expect from a Republican.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


>




the chicken egg will not become a human being.

the nut will not become a human being.

the caterpillar will not become a human being.

that sperm and egg together in a woman's body will become a human being....if it isn't murdered.....

That seems to be a difficult fucking concept for morons like you joe.......


----------



## paddymurphy

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the chicken egg will not become a human being.
> 
> the nut will not become a human being.
> 
> the caterpillar will not become a human being.
> 
> that sperm and egg together in a woman's body will become a human being....if it isn't murdered.....
> 
> That seems to be a difficult fucking concept for morons like you joe.......
Click to expand...

"will become a human being."  "Become:  To grow or come to be."  So, yes, the will come to be a human being, in the future.


----------



## depotoo

When one is proven wrong and at a loss of words...





paddymurphy said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> From her book Woman and the New Race
> 
> While unknowingly laying the foundations of tyrannies and providing the human tinder for racial conflagrations, woman was also unknowingly creating slums, filling asylums with Insane, and institutions with other defectives. She was replenishing the ranks of the prostitutes, furnishing grist for the criminal courts and inmates for prisons.  Had she planned deliberately to achieve thls tragic total of human waste and misery, she could hardly have done it more effectively.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, another quote one would expect from a Republican.
Click to expand...


----------



## depotoo

Right, that's why I can counter you every step of the way.





paddymurphy said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanger's motives ran much deeper than that and if you are honest and cared enough to research her writings, you know that.  Just find my posts in this thread where I have posted some of them and try to defend her after that.
> Here is one for you, let's see you defend it-
> "Today all classes in all countries try to exercise some control in regulating the size of their families. It is only the unfit, the less desirable, who procreate recklessly and without forethought or care. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well C4A, try this and tell me what you think!
> 
> Margaret-Sanger The Negro-Project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, some of the quotes on that page about her and her thoughts makes her sound like a racist....but this was not uncommon in the era that she lived...congress even funded her projects and causes, with full support....who would have thunk it?  I will say that I have seen information refuting some of the stuff said on that site, with references as well....it's neither here or there....
> 
> How do you feel about Birth control?  Are you against it?  Are you against providing tax monies to the poorest among us to support, as example, their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child?  Or do YOU side with Sanger on that...?
> 
> I can't tell you how many times posters that are conservative have posted that women SHOULD TAKE Birth control to prevent themselves from getting pregnant and having another baby on welfare....  at least a few hundred of those kind of comments here on USMB over the years I have been here from Republicans/conservatives/right wingers....which is in agreement with Sanger....
> 
> Do you support Margaret Sanger's cause, of educating and providing birth control/ information to those who can not afford to have more children than they already have....or that they can support?  If so, then you are a Sanger supporter as well....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like something Trump would say about Mexicans.  If you take a quote out of context of the time it was made and out of context of the rest of the writing, you can make it look like anything.  Her overall theme was that poor women having child after child perpetuated poverty and illness. Republicans say the very same thing about african american women and poor people in general.  She never advocated for abortion; only birth control.  She correctly noted that allowing women to control the number of children they had would greatly increase the chances that the family could rise out of poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honey, it is not out of context.  It is what  Sanger/Slee believed.  For anyone who takes the time to read all her articles, speeches through her years will find the same theme popping up throughout.
> The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger Web Edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if you read a single fucking word of those writings.  Had you done so, you would realize the truth of what I posted.
Click to expand...


----------



## paddymurphy

depotoo said:


> Right, that's why I can counter you every step of the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanger's motives ran much deeper than that and if you are honest and cared enough to research her writings, you know that.  Just find my posts in this thread where I have posted some of them and try to defend her after that.
> Here is one for you, let's see you defend it-
> "Today all classes in all countries try to exercise some control in regulating the size of their families. It is only the unfit, the less desirable, who procreate recklessly and without forethought or care. "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, some of the quotes on that page about her and her thoughts makes her sound like a racist....but this was not uncommon in the era that she lived...congress even funded her projects and causes, with full support....who would have thunk it?  I will say that I have seen information refuting some of the stuff said on that site, with references as well....it's neither here or there....
> 
> How do you feel about Birth control?  Are you against it?  Are you against providing tax monies to the poorest among us to support, as example, their 10th and 11th and 12th etc child?  Or do YOU side with Sanger on that...?
> 
> I can't tell you how many times posters that are conservative have posted that women SHOULD TAKE Birth control to prevent themselves from getting pregnant and having another baby on welfare....  at least a few hundred of those kind of comments here on USMB over the years I have been here from Republicans/conservatives/right wingers....which is in agreement with Sanger....
> 
> Do you support Margaret Sanger's cause, of educating and providing birth control/ information to those who can not afford to have more children than they already have....or that they can support?  If so, then you are a Sanger supporter as well....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like something Trump would say about Mexicans.  If you take a quote out of context of the time it was made and out of context of the rest of the writing, you can make it look like anything.  Her overall theme was that poor women having child after child perpetuated poverty and illness. Republicans say the very same thing about african american women and poor people in general.  She never advocated for abortion; only birth control.  She correctly noted that allowing women to control the number of children they had would greatly increase the chances that the family could rise out of poverty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honey, it is not out of context.  It is what  Sanger/Slee believed.  For anyone who takes the time to read all her articles, speeches through her years will find the same theme popping up throughout.
> The Public Papers of Margaret Sanger Web Edition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As if you read a single fucking word of those writings.  Had you done so, you would realize the truth of what I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

When are you going to start?


----------



## hortysir

JoeB131 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left will defend anything......absolutely anything.....as long as it's a liberal Democrat doing it. This ghoulish behavior is despicable. One member stated that people donate organs.....but that's something they have to grant permission for. In this case nobody gave them permission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the woman who the fetus was extracted from gave permission.
> 
> The problem is you want to think that the fetus is a separate person from the woman it's inside.
Click to expand...

Who gave permission?
Link? Anything of evidence?


----------



## 2aguy

paddymurphy said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the chicken egg will not become a human being.
> 
> the nut will not become a human being.
> 
> the caterpillar will not become a human being.
> 
> that sperm and egg together in a woman's body will become a human being....if it isn't murdered.....
> 
> That seems to be a difficult fucking concept for morons like you joe.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "will become a human being."  "Become:  To grow or come to be."  So, yes, the will come to be a human being, in the future.
Click to expand...



If they aren't murdered....


----------



## The Irish Ram

JoeB131 said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I can't wait for school to start. When the kids are out on the playground for recess, I run in and steal all of their lunches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be dishonest. You nuts have no problem cutting food stamps and school lunches.
> 
> If a woman is carrying a child and intends to birth it, and there is an abnormality, she goes to the hospital, or her Obgyn. That is not the function of planned parenthood. In fact that name is misleading.
Click to expand...


Thanks to the nuttiness of the anti-choice types who MURDER abortion doctors, PP is often the only place women can secure abortions. Most OB/GYN don't perform abortions or aren't set up to do late procedures.[/QUOTE]


Gee, if we could only figure out a way to prevent pregnancy!

And your bullshit doesn't  resonate with normal Americans.  We want food stamps to pay for food.  Not drugs, not liquor, not strip clubs.

Never murdered anyone, and have enough of a mind to realize what happens when you run out of baby parts to sell,  you start looking for more parts.  It has nothing to do with planning for parenthood.

Late procedures.  What a civil way to describe slitting infant's necks.
Go watch one.  Take some popcorn.....


----------



## HenryBHough

When they get done selling the good bits they have leftovers.

Where's the market?

Dog food?
Dried and salted?
Chocolate coated?

Surely such a progressive cult cannot tolerate waste......


----------



## FA_Q2

Coyote said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  The baby is not part of her body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is until it can live without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False.  Conjoined twins who cannot live without the other are considered separate persons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. Once they are born they are unique persons - conjoined or not.  It's also a false comparison.  Conjoined twins require each other to live.  A mother does not require the zygote, blastocyst or fetus in order to live and her body may expel it naturally at any time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So dependence is not a qualifier, good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prior to birth or viability - they are part of the mother's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, false.  The developing baby creates a filter to prevent mixing of blood between the two.  The baby has unique DNA and features.  He/she moves without the mother's control.  Tell you what, ask the next 100 pregnant women you see if what is growing inside of her is a part of her body or a baby.  See what they say.  Also, if you kill a pregnant woman, you can have multiple murder charges lodged against you.  That would be impossible if the developing baby is in fact merely a part of the mother's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The DNA may be "unique" but it is still part of the mother's body until it is viable.  If it were not, then we could simply remove it from the host incubator and transplant it into someone else who wanted it.
> 
> That's simply the way it is.
Click to expand...

No, it is not and again you make this claim when it it factually incorrect.

Would you call a tape worm human or part of a person?  Of course not - it is a separate being that lives inside of a host.  The state of being in a another body does not make you a part of that body weather or not you can survive outside of it.  Surviving separate from the host is entirely irrelevant.


----------



## g5000

Planned Parenthood head sorry for tone in video on fetal tissue use Reuters



> Planned Parenthood's president apologized on Thursday for the "tone and statements" of a senior staff member who was secretly recorded in a video that critics say suggests the U.S. reproductive health organization sells aborted fetal tissue.



Notice how the article says "fetal tissue" instead of "organs".

Here's the best part:



> Richards said Planned Parenthood stood by its work helping women to donate tissue for "lifesaving" research.



It never enters the bitch's twisted little mind they do "lifesaving" research by *killing a million babies a year *to get at those organs.


----------



## FA_Q2

g5000 said:


> Planned Parenthood head sorry for tone in video on fetal tissue use Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood's president apologized on Thursday for the "tone and statements" of a senior staff member who was secretly recorded in a video that critics say suggests the U.S. reproductive health organization sells aborted fetal tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the article says "fetal tissue" instead of "organs".
> 
> Here's the best part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richards said Planned Parenthood stood by its work helping women to donate tissue for "lifesaving" research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It never enters the bitch's twisted little mind they do "lifesaving" research by *killing a million babies a year *to get at those organs.
Click to expand...

That is what happens to your mind when you have spend decades trying to convince yourself that it really is not a living being but a clump of cells that happened at the wrong time.

Sad.


----------



## hortysir

g5000 said:


> Planned Parenthood head sorry for tone in video on fetal tissue use Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood's president apologized on Thursday for the "tone and statements" of a senior staff member who was secretly recorded in a video that critics say suggests the U.S. reproductive health organization sells aborted fetal tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how the article says "fetal tissue" instead of "organs".
> 
> Here's the best part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richards said Planned Parenthood stood by its work helping women to donate tissue for "lifesaving" research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It never enters the bitch's twisted little mind they do "lifesaving" research by *killing a million babies a year *to get at those organs.
Click to expand...

Notice how the woman in the video says "heart" not heart tissue, etc...

But let's not believe her own words.
Let's believe the PR spin doctor's words two days later


----------



## Darkwind

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what is amazing to me is it's not the slitting of the throats, or the crushing of the heads of those infants, but what is done with the remains that causes tears and anger. Why? Do they suddenly deserve respect? But not enough to let them take their first breath?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, the disposition of medical waste doesn't bother me, either.  It's medical waste, it doesn't deserve respect.   Unless it finds a cure to a disease using it.
> 
> You don't like abortion, don't have one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a sick bastard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given your posting history of hate, you're in no position to call anyone "sick."
Click to expand...

The level of irony here is astonishing....

I've yet to see you post anything that was not irrational hate on your part.


----------



## koshergrl

Again, let me point out that as bad as killing babies is, remember this is PLANNED PARENTHOOD who is supposed to be all about women's HEALTH, helping women, etc...and they are talking about putting those women in danger in order to successfully harvest TISSUE to sell.

The doctor speaks very explicitly about changing the procedure from the legal late term abortion procedure, to the illegal partial birth procedure..it is not only illegal to perform partial birth abortion (though she says glibly as long as she says at the beginning that they have no intention of using that particular procedure, they're covered later) but it's illegal to ALTER THE PROCEDURE in order to ACCOMMODATE tissue donation/extraction/sale...whatever you want to call it.

Layers upon layers of abuse, racketeering, and criminality.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Dude, GFY. I'm sick of your "I'm the smartest person in the room". You're not, you're just another loudmouth left loon. That's it



I don't need to be the smartest person in the room. 

Just smarter than you.  

But nearly everyone is.


----------



## JoeB131

Tipsycatlover said:


> PP made kidnapping pregnant women off the street profitable.



So when is this happening, exactly?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, GFY. I'm sick of your "I'm the smartest person in the room". You're not, you're just another loudmouth left loon. That's it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to be the smartest person in the room.
> 
> Just smarter than you.
> 
> But nearly everyone is.
Click to expand...


GFY you tired old fuck


----------



## JoeB131

depotoo said:


> Sanger's motives ran much deeper than that and if you are honest and cared enough to research her writings, you know that. Just find my posts in this thread where I have posted some of them and try to defend her after that.



You mean the misattributed, taken out of context quotes that you try to make into something sinister?


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> the chicken egg will not become a human being.
> 
> the nut will not become a human being.
> 
> the caterpillar will not become a human being.
> 
> that sperm and egg together in a woman's body will become a human being....if it isn't murdered.....



Actually, 2/3rds of fertilized zygotes never attach to the uterine wall.  

But we aren't holding funerals over tampons.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, GFY. I'm sick of your "I'm the smartest person in the room". You're not, you're just another loudmouth left loon. That's it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to be the smartest person in the room.
> 
> Just smarter than you.
> 
> But nearly everyone is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GFY you tired old fuck
Click to expand...


Ever notice that when FatIrishSow is getting spanked, the most clever rejoinder she can come up wiht is "GFY"?


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> the chicken egg will not become a human being.
> 
> the nut will not become a human being.
> 
> the caterpillar will not become a human being.
> 
> that sperm and egg together in a woman's body will become a human being....if it isn't murdered.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, 2/3rds of fertilized zygotes never attach to the uterine wall.
> 
> But we aren't holding funerals over tampons.
Click to expand...



And they aren't holding funerals at planned parenthood, they are having sales on organs......


----------



## Darkwind

Oh look...Those clumps of cells have arms an legs on the PP for sale menu!  Strange biology going on here....


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, GFY. I'm sick of your "I'm the smartest person in the room". You're not, you're just another loudmouth left loon. That's it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to be the smartest person in the room.
> 
> Just smarter than you.
> 
> But nearly everyone is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GFY you tired old fuck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever notice that when FatIrishSow is getting spanked, the most clever rejoinder she can come up wiht is "GFY"?
Click to expand...


You are a lap behind and think you're in the lead old man. You're strictly JV


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, GFY. I'm sick of your "I'm the smartest person in the room". You're not, you're just another loudmouth left loon. That's it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to be the smartest person in the room.
> 
> Just smarter than you.
> 
> But nearly everyone is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GFY you tired old fuck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever notice that when FatIrishSow is getting spanked, the most clever rejoinder she can come up wiht is "GFY"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a lap behind and think you're in the lead old man. You're strictly JV
Click to expand...

 Joeb is Gosnell's biggest fan. For real. He waxed poetic about what a hero the dude is.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, GFY. I'm sick of your "I'm the smartest person in the room". You're not, you're just another loudmouth left loon. That's it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to be the smartest person in the room.
> 
> Just smarter than you.
> 
> But nearly everyone is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GFY you tired old fuck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ever notice that when FatIrishSow is getting spanked, the most clever rejoinder she can come up wiht is "GFY"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a lap behind and think you're in the lead old man. You're strictly JV
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joeb is Gosnell's biggest fan. For real. He waxed poetic about what a hero the dude is.
Click to expand...


Joey is clueless, classless and pretty much a waste of space


----------



## JoeB131

The Irish Ram said:


> Gee, if we could only figure out a way to prevent pregnancy!
> 
> And your bullshit doesn't resonate with normal Americans. We want food stamps to pay for food. Not drugs, not liquor, not strip clubs.



It doesn't pay for any of those things... so no. 



The Irish Ram said:


> Never murdered anyone, and have enough of a mind to realize what happens when you run out of baby parts to sell, you start looking for more parts. It has nothing to do with planning for parenthood.



I don't think you have much of a mind at all. Here's the thing, there's plenty of adult tissue to be had from people who donate their organs or bodies to science.   Fetal Tissue, on the other hand, has unique properties that make it useful for certain types of research.  The kind of research that brought us things like the Polio Vaccine in 1954.  




The Irish Ram said:


> Late procedures. What a civil way to describe slitting infant's necks.
> Go watch one. Take some popcorn.....



I wouldn't want to watch an abortion being performed at any stage.  I also would not have wanted to watch my colonoscopy when that was performed.  Or my gall bladder or knee surgery.  Medical procedures are ugly. 

But fetuses aren't "infants". 

Now, I get why you anti-choice nutters like to go on about late procedures.  Even though they make up only 1% of all abortions performed, the fetus kind of looks like a baby, sort of, if you forget size and viability and only use drawings instead of actual pictures.  

Of course, the thing is, late procedures are only performed when something has gone wrong.  they've discovered the fetus has something like Down Syndrome or Spina-Bifida or something like that which will make their lives miserable. It actually is sort of a tragedy that some women try to mitigate by donating tissues to help others.  

Not that you Religious Ghouls care about that.  You just want to please your Imaginary Sky Pixie.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> Joeb is Gosnell's biggest fan. For real. He waxed poetic about what a hero the dude is.



Yes, "He shouldn't have been charged with questionable charges that were mostly thrown out" was just effusing praise.


----------



## koshergrl

JoeB131 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb is Gosnell's biggest fan. For real. He waxed poetic about what a hero the dude is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, "He shouldn't have been charged with questionable charges that were mostly thrown out" was just effusing praise.
Click to expand...

 No, you actually said he was a hero.


----------



## JoeB131

g5000 said:


> It never enters the bitch's twisted little mind they do "lifesaving" research by *killing a million babies a year *to get at those organs.



Except they don't kill any babies, and only some fetuses would really qualify for this kind of tissue collection.  

That's kind of like blaming Harley Davidson for the Organ Transplant industry.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> No, you actually said he was a hero.



No, actually, I said n othing of the sort, but I'm not going to waste time to figure out if you are lying or just stupid.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> And they aren't holding funerals at planned parenthood, they are having sales on organs......



You are dodging th he point, guy. 

If you want to claim life begins at conception, then we should hold funerals over tampons, right?


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they aren't holding funerals at planned parenthood, they are having sales on organs......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are dodging th he point, guy.
> 
> If you want to claim life begins at conception, then we should hold funerals over tampons, right?
Click to expand...

^^^ that has to be the dumbest thing you have said on this board ... And you have made some really dumb comments.


----------



## koshergrl

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they aren't holding funerals at planned parenthood, they are having sales on organs......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are dodging th he point, guy.
> 
> If you want to claim life begins at conception, then we should hold funerals over tampons, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ that has to be the dumbest thing you have said on this board ... And you have made some really dumb comments.
Click to expand...

 Calling Gosnell a hero was pretty memorable.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> ^^^ that has to be the dumbest thing you have said on this board ... And you have made some really dumb comments.



I'm just taking your logic to its conclusion. If you are going to take the position that you are a human being with rights the minute sperms hits Ova and that your needs outweight the person you are inside of for nine months, we totally need to have funerals over tampons.


----------



## hortysir

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ that has to be the dumbest thing you have said on this board ... And you have made some really dumb comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just taking your logic to its conclusion. If you are going to take the position that you are a human being with rights the minute sperms hits Ova and that your needs outweight the person you are inside of for nine months, we totally need to have funerals over tampons.
Click to expand...

I seriously think that's where the majority of your brain matter went


----------



## JoeB131

hortysir said:


> I seriously think that's where the majority of your brain matter went



I seriously think you wingnuts want to avoid this conversation. 

Here's the thing.  You all want to talk endlessly about "Late Term" and "Partial Birth" abortions, even though they are technically inaccurate terms and really only represent 1% of the abortions performed. 

Now, I might even agree with you, women who think abortion is a perfectly good form of birth control are contemptable.  They should take more control over their lives and relationships.   But no one is going to seriously tell a woman she can't have an abortion at 8 weeks, when most of them are performed. just like no one is going to really tell her not to take a "morning after pill" to induce a period to wash out that unwanted zygote. 

But you will go on and on about the poor lady who found out the baby she already picked out a name for needs to be aborted because he has spinabifida or brittle bone syndrome.


----------



## BlueGin

Darkwind said:


> Oh look...Those clumps of cells have arms an legs on the PP for sale menu!  Strange biology going on here....



Yeah they arent babies... Their spare parts just happen to be compatible with babies and are harvested and sold on the down low for a profit.

Liberal logic.


----------



## Dragonlady

SassyIrishLass said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs
> 
> 
> 
> I dont doubt that its true. I'm asking about Sanger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video sort of proves it's true and Sanger was a racist, who founded PP and advocated for the extermination of the black race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The video proves nothing about Sanger and I cant simply take your word that she advocated for the extermination of the Black race. I need some facts and not opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save it, I don't deal with deflection and BS from the likes of you
Click to expand...


In other words, you lied, got caught lying, and are trying to pretend you didn't lie. 

The anti-abortionists have been lying about Margaret Sanger for so long, they think their lie can be passed off as the truth now. It can't. She never said the things that anti-abortionists attribute to her. 

Your current film is also a fake. A carefully carved up interview about completing tissue donation forms, edited to make it sound like something else. Similar to the opening scenes in The Running Man where Arnold Schwarzenegger's character is framed for murder by carefully edited film.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragonlady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs
> 
> 
> 
> I dont doubt that its true. I'm asking about Sanger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video sort of proves it's true and Sanger was a racist, who founded PP and advocated for the extermination of the black race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The video proves nothing about Sanger and I cant simply take your word that she advocated for the extermination of the Black race. I need some facts and not opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save it, I don't deal with deflection and BS from the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you lied, got caught lying, and are trying to pretend you didn't lie.
> 
> The anti-abortionists have been lying about Margaret Sanger for so long, they think their lie can be passed off as the truth now. It can't. She never said the things that anti-abortionists attribute to her.
> 
> Your current film is also a fake. A carefully carved up interview about completing tissue donation forms, edited to make it sound like something else. Similar to the opening scenes in The Running Man where Arnold Schwarzenegger's character is framed for murder by carefully edited film.
Click to expand...

Racketeering butchers. You ppl sure are committed to the abuse and torture of women and children. Maybe a couple of you will torch yourselves in protest. I hope so. Though typically you're much more into the pain and suffering of others than you are your own...


----------



## Dragonlady

Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragonlady said:


> Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.


Trot out every spastic cliche to hide the fact you like baby killing and support the abuse and exploitation of vulnerable women.


----------



## BlueGin

Dragonlady said:


> Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.



Really? I donate clothes and school supplies to the children at the all faiths home and am considering adopting a child from the heart gallery. You really shouldn't assume things.


----------



## Dragonlady

koshergrl said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.
> 
> 
> 
> Trot out every spastic cliche to hide the fact you like baby killing and support the abuse and exploitation of vulnerable women.
Click to expand...


No, it is you who hates women, and spews hate at everyone who dares disagree with you.  I have never had an abortion, nor would I, but I am pro-choice.  Not having an abortion was my choice.  You don't get to choose other people's lives for them.  You don't have the right.  You don't get to tell a woman she must have a baby she cannot afford to care for.  You have no right to interfere in other people's lives and in other people's families.

Forcing women to have children is abusive and exploitative.  Look at what happened in Romania when abortion was banned.  It was a horror show.  Thousands of children abandoned in orphanages, left in cribs with poor nutrition and no one to care for them. 

Every year, nearly a million US women have abortions.  Who would care for all of these children if the women gave them up for adoption?  I guess you've forgotten about the orphanages of the 20's and 30's.  There are already hundreds of thousands of children in the foster care system that no one wants to adopt.  Every year another 100,000 children go into care who will never find a forever home.

And you want to add to those numbers by several hundred thousand more.  Brilliant.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragonlady said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.
> 
> 
> 
> Trot out every spastic cliche to hide the fact you like baby killing and support the abuse and exploitation of vulnerable women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is you who hates women, and spews hate at everyone who dares disagree with you.  I have never had an abortion, nor would I, but I am pro-choice.  Not having an abortion was my choice.  You don't get to choose other people's lives for them.  You don't have the right.  You don't get to tell a woman she must have a baby she cannot afford to care for.  You have no right to interfere in other people's lives and in other people's families.
> 
> Forcing women to have children is abusive and exploitative.  Look at what happened in Romania when abortion was banned.  It was a horror show.  Thousands of children abandoned in orphanages, left in cribs with poor nutrition and no one to care for them.
> 
> Every year, nearly a million US women have abortions.  Who would care for all of these children if the women gave them up for adoption?  I guess you've forgotten about the orphanages of the 20's and 30's.  There are already hundreds of thousands of children in the foster care system that no one wants to adopt.  Every year another 100,000 children go into care who will never find a forever home.
> 
> And you want to add to those numbers by several hundred thousand more.  Brilliant.
Click to expand...

I'm not reading your garbage. You stand with pimps, abusers and human traffickers in your mindless defense of an industry that accommodates the most heinous abuses of women, and then profits off those women in the most disgusting way imaginable. You are a valueless hag.


----------



## Dragonlady

In order to justify your abuse of others, you have convinced yourself that women aren't seeking abortions of their own choice. That they are being forced at have abortions against their will. 

In some regards this is correct. The women who obtain abortions are overwhelmingly low income women who cannot afford another child. Most have one or more children already and cannot afford another. They must choose between the child they have, and the one they are carrying. 

If you truly want to end abortion, you should be advocating for higher wages, paid maternity leave, subsidized child care, and single payer health care. 

Those are the ways to reduce abortion. Spewing your hate at those who believe in choice will accomplish nothing.


----------



## koshergrl

You support babykilling and the exploitation of pregnant, vulnerable and victimized women for profit. You don't even think they rate real doctors or the minimal oversight that we mandate for dental clinics. Get out of here, scum. You are contaminating the air.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> Racketeering butchers. You ppl sure are committed to the abuse and torture of women and children. Maybe a couple of you will torch yourselves in protest. I hope so. Though typically you're much more into the pain and suffering of others than you are your own...



So how about addressing her point rather than just doing your usual screaming about abortion? 

If you guys were on the up and up about this tape, you wouldn't have edited the shit out of it make it look like something it wasn't.  Nor would you have sat on it for a year.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> You support babykilling and the exploitation of pregnant, vulnerable and victimized women for profit. You don't even think they rate real doctors or the minimal oversight that we mandate for dental clinics. Get out of here, scum. You are contaminating the air.



I've known a lot of women who've had abortions. 

None of them were "vulnerable", or "victimized".  They made a decision a baby wasn't a part of their life plan at that time. 

One lady I knew had two abortions because she made the decision to stop taking birth control pills to get her boyfriend to finally make good on his promises to marry her. (He didn't.) Then she had abortions because her strict religious parents really, really thought she was still a virgin at 22.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Dragonlady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> This story is all over the internet, PP will bite it on this one. You own it libs
> 
> 
> 
> I dont doubt that its true. I'm asking about Sanger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video sort of proves it's true and Sanger was a racist, who founded PP and advocated for the extermination of the black race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The video proves nothing about Sanger and I cant simply take your word that she advocated for the extermination of the Black race. I need some facts and not opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save it, I don't deal with deflection and BS from the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you lied, got caught lying, and are trying to pretend you didn't lie.
> 
> The anti-abortionists have been lying about Margaret Sanger for so long, they think their lie can be passed off as the truth now. It can't. She never said the things that anti-abortionists attribute to her.
> 
> Your current film is also a fake. A carefully carved up interview about completing tissue donation forms, edited to make it sound like something else. Similar to the opening scenes in The Running Man where Arnold Schwarzenegger's character is framed for murder by carefully edited film.
Click to expand...


Prove I lied, troll. Sanger was a racist baby killer. Nothing more and nothing less. It's you assholes that are once again trying rewrite history. It won't work so just stop


----------



## strollingbones

yall would rather stand in the sun and tell your lies...than be in the shade telling the truth....this has been debunked and yet....on and on yall go


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Prove I lied, troll. Sanger was a racist baby killer. Nothing more and nothing less. It's you assholes that are once again trying rewrite history. It w



Oh, FatIrishSow, Sanger didn't advocate abortion.  She advocated birth control because abortion methods in the 1920's were sloppy and dangerous. 

Today, 96% of sexually active women practice some form of birth control. Sanger has already been vindicated by history.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove I lied, troll. Sanger was a racist baby killer. Nothing more and nothing less. It's you assholes that are once again trying rewrite history. It w
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, FatIrishSow, Sanger didn't advocate abortion.  She advocated birth control because abortion methods in the 1920's were sloppy and dangerous.
> 
> Today, 96% of sexually active women practice some form of birth control. Sanger has already been vindicated by history.
Click to expand...


Stop lying you fucking old fool. And grow up, your "fatirishsow" is middle school at best.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove I lied, troll. Sanger was a racist baby killer. Nothing more and nothing less. It's you assholes that are once again trying rewrite history. It w
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, FatIrishSow, Sanger didn't advocate abortion.  She advocated birth control because abortion methods in the 1920's were sloppy and dangerous.
> 
> Today, 96% of sexually active women practice some form of birth control. Sanger has already been vindicated by history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop lying you fucking old fool. And grow up, your "fatirishsow" is middle school at best.
Click to expand...


But it describes you so well...


----------



## paddymurphy

BlueGin said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I donate clothes and school supplies to the children at the all faiths home and am considering adopting a child from the heart gallery. You really shouldn't assume things.
Click to expand...

So, you give old clothes away and "think" about adopting.  Do the child a favor, stick to giving away the clothes you have outgrown.


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove I lied, troll. Sanger was a racist baby killer. Nothing more and nothing less. It's you assholes that are once again trying rewrite history. It w
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, FatIrishSow, Sanger didn't advocate abortion.  She advocated birth control because abortion methods in the 1920's were sloppy and dangerous.
> 
> Today, 96% of sexually active women practice some form of birth control. Sanger has already been vindicated by history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop lying you fucking old fool. And grow up, your "fatirishsow" is middle school at best.
Click to expand...

Of course, you don't respond to the fact that Sanger opposed abortion.


----------



## BlueGin

paddymurphy said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I donate clothes and school supplies to the children at the all faiths home and am considering adopting a child from the heart gallery. You really shouldn't assume things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you give old clothes away and "think" about adopting.  Do the child a favor, stick to giving away the clothes you have outgrown.
Click to expand...

A lot of them come from abusive homes and situations and are undergoing therapy that needs to be ongoing. They can't be placed in just any home ...they need the best fit for their situation. Some must be adopted along with their siblings, some do better in homes with no other kids,some do better with single mothers, some In a family environment...etc. plus I'm not the only person who has applied for consideration. How stupid are you anyway?


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont doubt that its true. I'm asking about Sanger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The video sort of proves it's true and Sanger was a racist, who founded PP and advocated for the extermination of the black race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The video proves nothing about Sanger and I cant simply take your word that she advocated for the extermination of the Black race. I need some facts and not opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save it, I don't deal with deflection and BS from the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you lied, got caught lying, and are trying to pretend you didn't lie.
> 
> The anti-abortionists have been lying about Margaret Sanger for so long, they think their lie can be passed off as the truth now. It can't. She never said the things that anti-abortionists attribute to her.
> 
> Your current film is also a fake. A carefully carved up interview about completing tissue donation forms, edited to make it sound like something else. Similar to the opening scenes in The Running Man where Arnold Schwarzenegger's character is framed for murder by carefully edited film.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove I lied, troll. Sanger was a racist baby killer. Nothing more and nothing less. It's you assholes that are once again trying rewrite history. It won't work so just stop
Click to expand...


Easy.  Sanger on abortion:  
"So, too, with woman’s struggle for emancipation. Women in all lands and all ages have instinctively desired family limitation. Usually this desire has been laid to economic pressure. Frequently the pressure has existed, but the driving force behind woman’s aspiration _toward freedom_ has lain deeper. It has asserted itself among the rich and among the poor, among the intelligent and the unintelligent. It has been manifested in such horrors as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion."

"While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization."

"Human society must protect its children–yes, but prenatal care is most essential! The child-to-be, as yet not called into being, has rights no less imperative."

"To each group we explained simply what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not begun."

"She turned women seeking abortions away from her clinics: “I do not approve of abortion.” She called it “sordid,” “abhorrent,” “terrible,” “barbaric,” a “horror.” She called abortionists “blood-sucking men with MD after their names who perform operations for the price of so-and-so.” She called the results of abortion “an outrageous slaughter,” “infanticide,” “foeticide,” and “the killing of babies.” And Margaret Sanger, who knew a thing or two about contraception, said that birth control “has nothing to do with abortion, it has nothing to do with interfering with or disturbing life after conception has taken place.” Birth control stands alone: “It is the first, last, and final step we all are to take to have real human emancipation.”

What Did Margaret Sanger Think about Abortion RedState

Now, lassie, stop lying.


----------



## paddymurphy

BlueGin said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I donate clothes and school supplies to the children at the all faiths home and am considering adopting a child from the heart gallery. You really shouldn't assume things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you give old clothes away and "think" about adopting.  Do the child a favor, stick to giving away the clothes you have outgrown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of them come from abusive homes and situations and are undergoing therapy that needs to be ongoing. They can't be placed in just any home ...they need the best fit for their situation. Some must be adopted along with their siblings, some do better in homes with no other kids,some do better with single mothers, some In a family environment...etc. plus I'm not the only person who has applied for consideration. How stupid are you anyway?
Click to expand...

I am sure those needy children appreciate your excuses.  Hopefully, a loving gay couple will step up while you "consider" your options.


----------



## BlueGin

paddymurphy said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I donate clothes and school supplies to the children at the all faiths home and am considering adopting a child from the heart gallery. You really shouldn't assume things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you give old clothes away and "think" about adopting.  Do the child a favor, stick to giving away the clothes you have outgrown.
Click to expand...


And by donate clothes I mean buying them clothes and donating them along with back packs and school supplies. They are kids dumbass... Obviously they don't wear adult clothing.


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont doubt that its true. I'm asking about Sanger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The video sort of proves it's true and Sanger was a racist, who founded PP and advocated for the extermination of the black race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The video proves nothing about Sanger and I cant simply take your word that she advocated for the extermination of the Black race. I need some facts and not opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save it, I don't deal with deflection and BS from the likes of you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, you lied, got caught lying, and are trying to pretend you didn't lie.
> 
> The anti-abortionists have been lying about Margaret Sanger for so long, they think their lie can be passed off as the truth now. It can't. She never said the things that anti-abortionists attribute to her.
> 
> Your current film is also a fake. A carefully carved up interview about completing tissue donation forms, edited to make it sound like something else. Similar to the opening scenes in The Running Man where Arnold Schwarzenegger's character is framed for murder by carefully edited film.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove I lied, troll. Sanger was a racist baby killer. Nothing more and nothing less. It's you assholes that are once again trying rewrite history. It won't work so just stop
Click to expand...

Plus the video I'm it's entirety is available for viewing. These idiots make these pronouncements without making the first effort to look at what they're talking about. Shows youwhT ignorant sheep they are.


----------



## BlueGin

paddymurphy said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I donate clothes and school supplies to the children at the all faiths home and am considering adopting a child from the heart gallery. You really shouldn't assume things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you give old clothes away and "think" about adopting.  Do the child a favor, stick to giving away the clothes you have outgrown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of them come from abusive homes and situations and are undergoing therapy that needs to be ongoing. They can't be placed in just any home ...they need the best fit for their situation. Some must be adopted along with their siblings, some do better in homes with no other kids,some do better with single mothers, some In a family environment...etc. plus I'm not the only person who has applied for consideration. How stupid are you anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sure those needy children appreciate your excuses.  Hopefully, a loving gay couple will step up while you "consider" your options.
Click to expand...


Maybe they will.  Is that supposed to offend me? Because it doesnt


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I donate clothes and school supplies to the children at the all faiths home and am considering adopting a child from the heart gallery. You really shouldn't assume things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you give old clothes away and "think" about adopting.  Do the child a favor, stick to giving away the clothes you have outgrown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of them come from abusive homes and situations and are undergoing therapy that needs to be ongoing. They can't be placed in just any home ...they need the best fit for their situation. Some must be adopted along with their siblings, some do better in homes with no other kids,some do better with single mothers, some In a family environment...etc. plus I'm not the only person who has applied for consideration. How stupid are you anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sure those needy children appreciate your excuses.  Hopefully, a loving gay couple will step up while you "consider" your options.
Click to expand...

Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I donate clothes and school supplies to the children at the all faiths home and am considering adopting a child from the heart gallery. You really shouldn't assume things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you give old clothes away and "think" about adopting.  Do the child a favor, stick to giving away the clothes you have outgrown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of them come from abusive homes and situations and are undergoing therapy that needs to be ongoing. They can't be placed in just any home ...they need the best fit for their situation. Some must be adopted along with their siblings, some do better in homes with no other kids,some do better with single mothers, some In a family environment...etc. plus I'm not the only person who has applied for consideration. How stupid are you anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sure those needy children appreciate your excuses.  Hopefully, a loving gay couple will step up while you "consider" your options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
Click to expand...

So, you would kill your own child if they were gay?


----------



## koshergrl

BlueGin said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I donate clothes and school supplies to the children at the all faiths home and am considering adopting a child from the heart gallery. You really shouldn't assume things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you give old clothes away and "think" about adopting.  Do the child a favor, stick to giving away the clothes you have outgrown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of them come from abusive homes and situations and are undergoing therapy that needs to be ongoing. They can't be placed in just any home ...they need the best fit for their situation. Some must be adopted along with their siblings, some do better in homes with no other kids,some do better with single mothers, some In a family environment...etc. plus I'm not the only person who has applied for consideration. How stupid are you anyway?
Click to expand...

Ah, vulnerable and traumatized....perfect pickings for predatory homosexuals. At least they (mostly) only expect Christians to serve them at orgies. Imagine being locked in a dwelling with them, unable to escape.


----------



## BlueGin

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reactionary liars. You people really are committed to controlling the lives of others.  You're so pro-life you're suggesting others kill themselves. How hypocritical of you. Although you are consistently hypocritical since you care nothing for these innocents once they're living breathing children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I donate clothes and school supplies to the children at the all faiths home and am considering adopting a child from the heart gallery. You really shouldn't assume things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you give old clothes away and "think" about adopting.  Do the child a favor, stick to giving away the clothes you have outgrown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of them come from abusive homes and situations and are undergoing therapy that needs to be ongoing. They can't be placed in just any home ...they need the best fit for their situation. Some must be adopted along with their siblings, some do better in homes with no other kids,some do better with single mothers, some In a family environment...etc. plus I'm not the only person who has applied for consideration. How stupid are you anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sure those needy children appreciate your excuses.  Hopefully, a loving gay couple will step up while you "consider" your options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
Click to expand...


Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I donate clothes and school supplies to the children at the all faiths home and am considering adopting a child from the heart gallery. You really shouldn't assume things.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you give old clothes away and "think" about adopting.  Do the child a favor, stick to giving away the clothes you have outgrown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of them come from abusive homes and situations and are undergoing therapy that needs to be ongoing. They can't be placed in just any home ...they need the best fit for their situation. Some must be adopted along with their siblings, some do better in homes with no other kids,some do better with single mothers, some In a family environment...etc. plus I'm not the only person who has applied for consideration. How stupid are you anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sure those needy children appreciate your excuses.  Hopefully, a loving gay couple will step up while you "consider" your options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you would kill your own child if they were gay?
Click to expand...

No, but I would rescue a child being victimized by perverts.


----------



## koshergrl

BlueGin said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I donate clothes and school supplies to the children at the all faiths home and am considering adopting a child from the heart gallery. You really shouldn't assume things.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you give old clothes away and "think" about adopting.  Do the child a favor, stick to giving away the clothes you have outgrown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of them come from abusive homes and situations and are undergoing therapy that needs to be ongoing. They can't be placed in just any home ...they need the best fit for their situation. Some must be adopted along with their siblings, some do better in homes with no other kids,some do better with single mothers, some In a family environment...etc. plus I'm not the only person who has applied for consideration. How stupid are you anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sure those needy children appreciate your excuses.  Hopefully, a loving gay couple will step up while you "consider" your options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
Click to expand...

Oh they think some are useful. They have to groom replacements, after all.


----------



## evince

*Dr. Deborah Nucatola 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know Heavy.com*




*Dr. Deborah Nucatola: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know*
*Published* 4:06 pm EDT, July 14, 2015 *Updated* 1:57 pm EDT, July 15, 2015 21 Comments By Paul Farrell
16.3k
Share 230 Tweet 21 Share 
Save
Email
This embed is invalid

'>
In an undercover video from the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress, a senior Planned Parenthood doctor drinks wine and describes the harvesting of fetus organs and the cost to provide them. The doctor is identified as Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The video’s makers claim it proves Planned Parenthood is illegally selling fetal tissue and performing illegal partial-birth abortions. Planned Parenthood refutes the claims, explaining that the dollar figures discussed refer to costs associated with delivering donated tissue. You can watch the full video above.

Here’s what you need to know about the video and Nucatola:

*1. Nucatola Says ‘We’ve Been Very Good at Getting Heart, Lung, Liver’ & the Cost of Providing Specimens Is $30 to $100*





(Center for Medical Progress)

According to the Center for Medical Progress, which produced the video, it was recorded secretly during a lunch meeting between Nucatola and actors, who were posing as buyers from a medical company. The clip was made in June 2014. Below is the heavily edited version:

This embed is invalid

'>
During the meeting, Nucatola discusses the cost to provide specimens — between $30 and $100 for body parts such as lungs and kidneys, with liver being the most sought-after organ. According to the Center for Medical Progress, anybody found guilty of the sale of fetal tissue is liable for a $500,000 fine and/or 10 years in prison. The group claims the video proves Planned Parenthood is illegally selling organs, but Planned Parenthood says Nucatola is not talking about sale prices but rather the costs associated with delivering donated tissue.

In the video, Nucatola discusses the legal sensitivity surrounding Planned Parenthood’s role in providing specimens, saying the organization distances itself from the issue but she knows it’s happening at affiliate clinics: “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department, which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now. But I will tell you that behind closed doors these conversations are happening with the affiliates.”

Finally, Nucatola talks about abortion doctors’ prowess in harvesting organs intact: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

Nucatola describes in graphic detail the techniques designed to preserve certain body parts, including what the video’s makers claim is a description of so-called partial-birth abortion, which is illegal according to the Supreme Court.

Read a transcript of the video below:

This embed is invalid

'>


*2. Her Boss, Nancy Pelosi’s Former Deputy Chief of Staff, Calls Nucatola ‘Amazing’*




Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, calls Nucatola “amazing.” (Getty)

Cecile Richards, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, appears at the end of the video in a clip recorded separately and commends the work of Nucatola, calling her “great” and “amazing.” It’s made clear that at the time of her comments, Richards didn’t know about the video.

Planned Parenthood has issued a statement in response to the video:

In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does — with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.

A well funded group established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services has promoted a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research. Similar false accusations have been put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades. These groups have been widely discredited and their claims fall apart on closer examination, just as they do in this case.

Richards is the daughter of former Texas Governor Ann Richards and was a former deputy chief of staff to Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Leader in the House of Representatives.

*3. Nucatola Has Been With Planned Parenthood for 10 Years*




Nucatola, pictured on her now-deleted Twitter page.

According to her LinkedIn page, Nucatola has worked for Planned Parenthood since February 2005, ascending to the role of senior director in 2009. She got her BA from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and her medical degree from the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center College of Medicine. The little information that could be gathered from a cached version of her deleted Twitter page indicates that she’s a big football fan.

*4. Nucatola Says ‘No One Ever Plans to Have an Abortion’*





In an interview about her day-to-day role as an abortion doctor, Nucatola told Think Catalog in 2014:

One thing I’ve learned is that no one ever plans to have an abortion.

Or to ever be in a situation where they might want or need to consider having an abortion. I think that’s one reason why we’ve seen so many laws restricting abortion in the last few years: People don’t put themselves in that hypothetical situation and wonder what they would do if they were faced with an unintended pregnancy.

She also answered the question about why she became an abortion doctor, answering:

Patients will often ask me why I became an abortion provider, and I explain that I didn’t plan my path in life to become an abortion provider. Rather, I became an obstetrician gynecologist because I wanted to take care of women — through all the phases of their reproductive life, whether or not they ever decided to have children.

Nucatola also dismisses the idea of having any qualms about providing abortions, saying, “I think providing abortion to a woman who requests it is the moral and ethical thing to do.”

*5. ‘Partial-Birth Abortion’ Is Not a Medically Recognized Term*




(Getty)

The phrase partial-birth abortion, or partial-term abortion, though used frequently by pro-life groups, is not a medical term according to the American Medical Association or the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Anybody caught administering partial-birth abortions is subject to two years in prison. The Center for Medical Progress has said this is just the first in a series of investigations into the “illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts.”


----------



## paddymurphy

BlueGin said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I donate clothes and school supplies to the children at the all faiths home and am considering adopting a child from the heart gallery. You really shouldn't assume things.
> 
> 
> 
> So, you give old clothes away and "think" about adopting.  Do the child a favor, stick to giving away the clothes you have outgrown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot of them come from abusive homes and situations and are undergoing therapy that needs to be ongoing. They can't be placed in just any home ...they need the best fit for their situation. Some must be adopted along with their siblings, some do better in homes with no other kids,some do better with single mothers, some In a family environment...etc. plus I'm not the only person who has applied for consideration. How stupid are you anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sure those needy children appreciate your excuses.  Hopefully, a loving gay couple will step up while you "consider" your options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
Click to expand...

Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.


----------



## BlueGin

paddymurphy said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you give old clothes away and "think" about adopting.  Do the child a favor, stick to giving away the clothes you have outgrown.
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of them come from abusive homes and situations and are undergoing therapy that needs to be ongoing. They can't be placed in just any home ...they need the best fit for their situation. Some must be adopted along with their siblings, some do better in homes with no other kids,some do better with single mothers, some In a family environment...etc. plus I'm not the only person who has applied for consideration. How stupid are you anyway?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am sure those needy children appreciate your excuses.  Hopefully, a loving gay couple will step up while you "consider" your options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
Click to expand...

Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.


----------



## paddymurphy

BlueGin said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of them come from abusive homes and situations and are undergoing therapy that needs to be ongoing. They can't be placed in just any home ...they need the best fit for their situation. Some must be adopted along with their siblings, some do better in homes with no other kids,some do better with single mothers, some In a family environment...etc. plus I'm not the only person who has applied for consideration. How stupid are you anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure those needy children appreciate your excuses.  Hopefully, a loving gay couple will step up while you "consider" your options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
Click to expand...

They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..


----------



## koshergrl

BlueGin said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of them come from abusive homes and situations and are undergoing therapy that needs to be ongoing. They can't be placed in just any home ...they need the best fit for their situation. Some must be adopted along with their siblings, some do better in homes with no other kids,some do better with single mothers, some In a family environment...etc. plus I'm not the only person who has applied for consideration. How stupid are you anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure those needy children appreciate your excuses.  Hopefully, a loving gay couple will step up while you "consider" your options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
Click to expand...

They're also motivated by their desire to keep the sex and human trafficking trades clicking along at a good pace.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure those needy children appreciate your excuses.  Hopefully, a loving gay couple will step up while you "consider" your options.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
Click to expand...

Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
Click to expand...


Deny,deny,deny....it's what Left turds do in spite of evidence


----------



## Wildman

SassyIrishLass said:


> *Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*



*and that fucking muslime mulatto retard in the W.H. is just fine with this ghoulish procedure. he should donate his body to science....., TODAY !!*


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deny,deny,deny....it's what Left turds do in spite of evidence
Click to expand...

You lied and claimed Sanger supported abortion.  I provided evidence proving your lie.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deny,deny,deny....it's what Left turds do in spite of evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied and claimed Sanger supported abortion.  I provided evidence proving your lie.
Click to expand...


You did not. Anyone with two functioning brain cells knows Sanger was an abortion embracing racist.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
Click to expand...

I watched it and read the entire fucking transcript you sick, lying piece of shit.  The only "investigation" is by right wing politicians placating assholes like you.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it and read the entire fucking transcript you sick, lying piece of shit.  The only "investigation" is by right wing politicians placating assholes like you.
Click to expand...


We have liftoff!!!!!!! Once again you get frustrated because you can't force your BS and go ballistic. You're too predictable, old man


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deny,deny,deny....it's what Left turds do in spite of evidence
Click to expand...

I'm eternally disappointed by their refusal to prepare themselves even at the most basic level for our little discussions. Do they look at or read nothing except progressive  press releases??


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deny,deny,deny....it's what Left turds do in spite of evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied and claimed Sanger supported abortion.  I provided evidence proving your lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not. Anyone with two functioning brain cells knows Sanger was an abortion embracing racist.
Click to expand...

And yet, you can not provide anything from Sanger supporting abortion while I provided several statements from her decrying abortion. And I got them from a right wing website, red state.com.  Not all conservatives are lying pricks like you.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it and read the entire fucking transcript you sick, lying piece of shit.  The only "investigation" is by right wing politicians placating assholes like you.
Click to expand...

Sure you did, faggy mcpheeters.


----------



## BlueGin

paddymurphy said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure those needy children appreciate your excuses.  Hopefully, a loving gay couple will step up while you "consider" your options.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
Click to expand...


That's what you nitwits said about Kermit Gosnell too. It's not like you are in the habit of telling the truth. So forgive me if I laugh at you.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Deny,deny,deny....it's what Left turds do in spite of evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You lied and claimed Sanger supported abortion.  I provided evidence proving your lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You did not. Anyone with two functioning brain cells knows Sanger was an abortion embracing racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, you can not provide anything from Sanger supporting abortion while I provided several statements from her decrying abortion. And I got them from a right wing website, red state.com.  Not all conservatives are lying pricks like you.
Click to expand...


Awww widdle paddy is all mad and shit LMAO You need help for your anger issues


----------



## Wildman

SassyIrishLass said:


> *Deny,deny,deny....it's what Left turds do in spite of evidence*



*i believe if they actually witnessed a baby being cut up (read; butchered like a pig) they would deny it, i also believe if they actually did witness this butchery they would be gleaming with joy and reveling. 
*


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Wildman said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Deny,deny,deny....it's what Left turds do in spite of evidence*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *i believe if they actually witnessed a baby being cut up (read; butchered like a pig) they would deny it, i also believe if they actually did witness this butchery they would be gleaming with joy and reveling. *
Click to expand...


They would claim it's being taken out of context and try and convince you they are saving the child from a future of mean old republicans


----------



## koshergrl

BlueGin said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you nitwits said about Kermit Gosnell too. It's not like you are in the habit of telling the truth. So forgive me if I laugh at you.
Click to expand...

Gosnell is a god to them..or as joeb called him...a HERO.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you nitwits said about Kermit Gosnell too. It's not like you are in the habit of telling the truth. So forgive me if I laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gosnell is a god to them..or as joeb called him...a HERO.
Click to expand...


You can't be serious


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you nitwits said about Kermit Gosnell too. It's not like you are in the habit of telling the truth. So forgive me if I laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gosnell is a god to them..or as joeb called him...a HERO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't be serious
Click to expand...

100 percent.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you nitwits said about Kermit Gosnell too. It's not like you are in the habit of telling the truth. So forgive me if I laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gosnell is a god to them..or as joeb called him...a HERO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't be serious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100 percent.
Click to expand...


Anyone that thinks Gosnell is a hero has some major issues going on


----------



## evince

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it and read the entire fucking transcript you sick, lying piece of shit.  The only "investigation" is by right wing politicians placating assholes like you.
Click to expand...





it  seems they have tried and convicted her too.


yet they refuse to accept court documents of their own crimes .

they are liars and traitors to this country


----------



## BlueGin

evince said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it and read the entire fucking transcript you sick, lying piece of shit.  The only "investigation" is by right wing politicians placating assholes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it  seems they have tried and convicted her too.
> 
> 
> yet they refuse to accept court documents of their own crimes .
> 
> they are liars and traitors to this country
Click to expand...


Hi Truth Matters. Long time no see.


----------



## koshergrl

evince said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it and read the entire fucking transcript you sick, lying piece of shit.  The only "investigation" is by right wing politicians placating assholes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it  seems they have tried and convicted her too.
> 
> 
> yet they refuse to accept court documents of their own crimes .
> 
> they are liars and traitors to this country
Click to expand...

In other words 'I approve of human trafficking and the butchery of pregnant women to feed the abortion industry. I will lie, cheat, and kill to protect it.' Tell me something I didn't know.


----------



## paddymurphy

BlueGin said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the only purpose the left has for libe children...to be groomed to satisfy the depraved appetites of the homo community. Maybe they are better off dead....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you nitwits said about Kermit Gosnell too. It's not like you are in the habit of telling the truth. So forgive me if I laugh at you.
Click to expand...

No one said that about Gosnell.


----------



## SassyIrishLass




----------



## evince

why does the right claim she has been convicted of something?


because they are liars


----------



## Dragonlady

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it and read the entire fucking transcript you sick, lying piece of shit.  The only "investigation" is by right wing politicians placating assholes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have liftoff!!!!!!! Once again you get frustrated because you can't force your BS and go ballistic. You're too predictable, old man
Click to expand...


You have been posting lies, insults, abuse and distortions this whole thread.  You and KG have gone off your meds. You're positively frothing at the mouth with your hatred and lies. 

I watched the video. It's crap. Again, heavily edited to make believe the doctor says something she never said.  That's why it took them a year to release it. It took that long. 

There are 100,000 children added to the rolls of children waiting for adoption every year, who will never find homes. You want to increase that number times 10. 

You lie when you say you want to end abortion. You propose NOTHING to help women keep their babies. 

In Canada, abortion is legal and free, but because we have paid maternity leave, free healthcare with no copayment, subsidized day care, family leave, and income supports for families with young children, our abortion rate is half that of the U.S.  

But you won't support any of those things because, in truth you just want a target for your anger and hate and abortion gives you the excuse to come here with your nastiness and your hatred and insult people. 

Campaign life your name's a lie. You don't care if women die.


----------



## evince

james okeefe crap style lies


----------



## paddymurphy

Dragonlady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it and read the entire fucking transcript you sick, lying piece of shit.  The only "investigation" is by right wing politicians placating assholes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have liftoff!!!!!!! Once again you get frustrated because you can't force your BS and go ballistic. You're too predictable, old man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been posting lies, insults, abuse and distortions this whole thread.  You and KG have gone off your meds. You're positively frothing at the mouth with your hatred and lies.
> 
> I watched the video. It's crap. Again, heavily edited to make believe the doctor says something she never said.  That's why it took them a year to release it. It took that long.
> 
> There are 100,000 children added to the rolls of children waiting for adoption every year, who will never find homes. You want to increase that number times 10.
> 
> You lie when you say you want to end abortion. You propose NOTHING to help women keep their babies.
> 
> In Canada, abortion is legal and free, but because we have paid maternity leave, free healthcare with no copayment, subsidized day care, family leave, and income supports for families with young children, our abortion rate is half that of the U.S.
> 
> But you won't support any of those things because, in truth you just want a target for your anger and hate and abortion gives you the excuse to come here with your nastiness and your hatred and insult people.
> 
> Campaign life your name's a lie. You don't care if women die.
Click to expand...

But, they won the debate, right?   They win by repeating the same lies over and over and over again. You can provide them with proof that they are lying and their response is to repeat the lie without offering anything in support. Theypost out of context quotes and outright falsified quotes from Sanger to claim she was a racist but when you provide quotes from the same writings that prove them wrong, they don't respond with anything other than their own unsupported claims.  It really is kind of encouraging to see how utterly stupid folks who think like they do are.  That is why they have so little success attracting many folks to their side of any debate.


----------



## Dragonlady

No they didn't win the debate. They'll go away for a time and lick their wounds and come back with the same lies. 

They aren't pro-life at all their goal is simply to vent their anger and their hatred at others. Abortion provides them with an excuse for their vile behaviour because how can support killing babies?  It's only when they continuously reject any sort of help for poor families that they real agenda shines through.


----------



## BlueGin

When do progressives help poor families?


----------



## paddymurphy

Dragonlady said:


> No they didn't win the debate. They'll go away for a time and lick their wounds and come back with the same lies.
> 
> They aren't pro-life at all their goal is simply to vent their anger and their hatred at others. Abortion provides them with an excuse for their vile behaviour because how can support killing babies?  It's only when they continuously reject any sort of help for poor families that they real agenda shines through.


I know. They cannot win a debate because they don't actually debate.  They never bring proof or evidence to support what they say, mostly because it is impossible to prove a lie.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.



Exept they aren't making a profit, and the procurement of fetal tissue is done under strict federal guidelines set down by the medical community.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> Gosnell is a god to them..or as joeb called him...a HERO.



funny, i don't remember calling him a "hero". 

I  do remember calling him a quack, a malpractricioner and a drug dealer- all crimes he clearly committed. 

I even think he killed Mrs. Mognar, a 43 year old Nepalese immigrant who could't get a safe abortion in her own state because anti-choice nuts like you made it too difficult. 

However, I don't think you can call him a murderer when even the Judge and Jury was reluctant to go that far. (They threw out all but three of the charges).  Especially after the state gave a pass to his employees and patients who were all co-conspirators. 

So they convicted him of Feticide, and then copped a sentencing deal to keep him from appealing their questionable reasoning to anyone who can actually read a law book.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> They would claim it's being taken out of context and try and convince you they are saving the child from a future of mean old republicans



No, we would just point out that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant. 

Even when abortion was illegal, women were never prosecuted for having them.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosnell is a god to them..or as joeb called him...a HERO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny, i don't remember calling him a "hero".
> 
> I  do remember calling him a quack, a malpractricioner and a drug dealer- all crimes he clearly committed.
> 
> I even think he killed Mrs. Mognar, a 43 year old Nepalese immigrant who could't get a safe abortion in her own state because anti-choice nuts like you made it too difficult.
> 
> However, I don't think you can call him a murderer when even the Judge and Jury was reluctant to go that far. (They threw out all but three of the charges).  Especially after the state gave a pass to his employees and patients who were all co-conspirators.
> 
> So they convicted him of Feticide, and then copped a sentencing deal to keep him from appealing their questionable reasoning to anyone who can actually read a law book.
Click to expand...


The hell you can't call him a murderer, he was convicted of three counts of first degree murder


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties dont want children adopted. They want them aborted.
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you nitwits said about Kermit Gosnell too. It's not like you are in the habit of telling the truth. So forgive me if I laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said that about Gosnell.
Click to expand...

Yes they did. Now who's lying...


----------



## koshergrl

Dragonlady said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that's why the investigation was launched. You haven't even watched the video. Only baby killing brokers are pretending it doesn't show what it shows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I watched it and read the entire fucking transcript you sick, lying piece of shit.  The only "investigation" is by right wing politicians placating assholes like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have liftoff!!!!!!! Once again you get frustrated because you can't force your BS and go ballistic. You're too predictable, old man
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have been posting lies, insults, abuse and distortions this whole thread.  You and KG have gone off your meds. You're positively frothing at the mouth with your hatred and lies.
> 
> I watched the video. It's crap. Again, heavily edited to make believe the doctor says something she never said.  That's why it took them a year to release it. It took that long.
> 
> There are 100,000 children added to the rolls of children waiting for adoption every year, who will never find homes. You want to increase that number times 10.
> 
> You lie when you say you want to end abortion. You propose NOTHING to help women keep their babies.
> 
> In Canada, abortion is legal and free, but because we have paid maternity leave, free healthcare with no copayment, subsidized day care, family leave, and income supports for families with young children, our abortion rate is half that of the U.S.
> 
> But you won't support any of those things because, in truth you just want a target for your anger and hate and abortion gives you the excuse to come here with your nastiness and your hatred and insult people.
> 
> Campaign life your name's a lie. You don't care if women die.
Click to expand...

Says the person who approves of coerced uterus scraping.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> The hell you can't call him a murderer, he was convicted of three counts of first degree murder



one of which, he wasn't even in the building when it occurred.  He gave instructions to a nurse at the clinic over the phone. That nurse was NOT charged with murder, he was.  Neither was the woman who came in for the abortion.  

Why weren't the women charged as co-conspirators? Why did the staff members get sweetheart deals for their testimony? 

And if there case was so iron clad, why didn't they push right through to the penalty phase instead of copping a sentencing agreement that was contingent on him never appealing his case to someone who can actually read a law book?  

To give you an equivlent, it would be like if I prosecuted Nancy Lanza's gun dealer for the 26 Sandy Hook murders.  NO real evidence of a law broken, but just showing autopsy photos and appealing to emotion.  

Law shouldn't work that way.  

THere were laws he clearly broke.  Killing fetuses wasn't one of them.


----------



## JoeB131

So I have to ask all the anti-Choice nuts. 

What sentences will you give the women who get abortions?  Because it seems to me that PP or Gosnell or Nucatella wouldn't have any customers if women weren't walking into their clinics with their own two legs to get them.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> They would claim it's being taken out of context and try and convince you they are saving the child from a future of mean old republicans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we would just point out that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant.
> 
> Even when abortion was illegal, women were never prosecuted for having them.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hell you can't call him a murderer, he was convicted of three counts of first degree murder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one of which, he wasn't even in the building when it occurred.  He gave instructions to a nurse at the clinic over the phone. That nurse was NOT charged with murder, he was.  Neither was the woman who came in for the abortion.
> 
> Why weren't the women charged as co-conspirators? Why did the staff members get sweetheart deals for their testimony?
> 
> And if there case was so iron clad, why didn't they push right through to the penalty phase instead of copping a sentencing agreement that was contingent on him never appealing his case to someone who can actually read a law book?
> 
> To give you an equivlent, it would be like if I prosecuted Nancy Lanza's gun dealer for the 26 Sandy Hook murders.  NO real evidence of a law broken, but just showing autopsy photos and appealing to emotion.
> 
> Law shouldn't work that way.
> 
> THere were laws he clearly broke.  Killing fetuses wasn't one of them.
Click to expand...


You're one sick asshole.....and yes Gosnell was a murderer. All your blather doesn't change that


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> You're one sick asshole.....and yes Gosnell was a murderer. All your blather doesn't change that



No, what is sick is you guys wanting to get into other people's hoo-has because you don't have any action going on in your own.  

Gosnell was a murderer. He killed a 43 year old Nepalese woman who couldn't get an abortion in her home state because anti-choice nutters made it too difficult.  

Terminating non-viable fetuses, however, isn't something he was guilty of.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're one sick asshole.....and yes Gosnell was a murderer. All your blather doesn't change that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what is sick is you guys wanting to get into other people's hoo-has because you don't have any action going on in your own.
> 
> Gosnell was a murderer. He killed a 43 year old Nepalese woman who couldn't get an abortion in her home state because anti-choice nutters made it too difficult.
> 
> Terminating non-viable fetuses, however, isn't something he was guilty of.
Click to expand...


GFY, just go GFY. I'm done dealing with your spin and deflection. You get caught lying and play it off. Weak


----------



## koshergrl

Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.



I'm done dealing with his dumb ass. He's just a typical left loon. Worthless.


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done dealing with his dumb ass. He's just a typical left loon. Worthless.
Click to expand...

I imagine he and dragonlady have a vibrant pm sex life full of colorful descriptions of pregnant women in stirrups and men with masks and forceps.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> GFY, just go GFY. I'm done dealing with your spin and deflection. You get caught lying and play it off. Weak



Yes, your inability to sustain and argument or inform yourself on the subject matter is duly noted.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> GFY, just go GFY. I'm done dealing with your spin and deflection. You get caught lying and play it off. Weak
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your inability to sustain and argument or inform yourself on the subject matter is duly noted.
Click to expand...


I repeat, GFY. Now what are you going to do it about it old man, pester me to death? Get lost, loon


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.



Uh, one more time, dummy.  

Women aren't being kidnapped off the street. They go to abortion clinics of their own volition. 

I know this is hard for you to grasp, that you think women are the victims.  PP isn't making them have abortions and neither is the government. 

Now, not having a uterus, I don't really have a dog in this fight.  I think that this should be an issue between a woman and her doctor.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> I repeat, GFY. Now what are you going to do it about it old man, pester me to death? Get lost, loon



Naw, I'm enjoying the space in your head I occupy Rent Free.  I'm just not going to let you get away with saying stupid things...  

Just because you use your personality as birth control, doesn't mean you should limit other people's options.


----------



## BlueGin

SassyIrishLass said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done dealing with his dumb ass. He's just a typical left loon. Worthless.
Click to expand...


Probably a paid spammer anyway.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlueGin said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done dealing with his dumb ass. He's just a typical left loon. Worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably a paid spammer anyway.
Click to expand...


. He gets shellacked and claims victory. What a dope


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, one more time, dummy.
> 
> Women aren't being kidnapped off the street. They go to abortion clinics of their own volition.
> 
> I know this is hard for you to grasp, that you think women are the victims.  PP isn't making them have abortions and neither is the government.
> 
> Now, not having a uterus, I don't really have a dog in this fight.  I think that this should be an issue between a woman and her doctor.
Click to expand...


Oh you mean like the woman in Gosnell's clinic that changed their mind and were strapped down, drugged and given abortions anyway... Then sent home with life threatening infections?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat, GFY. Now what are you going to do it about it old man, pester me to death? Get lost, loon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I'm enjoying the space in your head I occupy Rent Free.  I'm just not going to let you get away with saying stupid things...
> 
> Just because you use your personality as birth control, doesn't mean you should limit other people's options.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Probably a paid spammer anyway.



Naw, I would pay money for the joy of pissing off religious assholes.  

Now, if someone wanted to have a rational discussion about abortion and reducing the number of them, I'm down with that, too.  

You want less abortions?  Better sex education, more birth control, universal health care and paid family leave.  

The Europeans have already figured this out. (The Europeans have figured a LOT of stuff out, but Americans are all like "USA, USA, USA"!)


----------



## BlueGin

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done dealing with his dumb ass. He's just a typical left loon. Worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably a paid spammer anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> . He gets shellacked and claims victory. What a dope
Click to expand...

Paid for post people will do that


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Oh you mean like the woman in Gosnell's clinic that changed their mind and were strapped down, drugged and given abortions anyway... Then sent home with life threatening infections?



Okay, was it a "woman" or was it a "their"..  

Because Gosnell was never charged with that. 

Now Gosnell was a horrible doctor.  I wouldn't even call him a "Doctor".  But when you have one standard of care for people of means and one for poor people, things like him are going to happen.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably a paid spammer anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I would pay money for the joy of pissing off religious assholes.
> 
> Now, if someone wanted to have a rational discussion about abortion and reducing the number of them, I'm down with that, too.
> 
> You want less abortions?  Better sex education, more birth control, universal health care and paid family leave.
> 
> The Europeans have already figured this out. (The Europeans have figured a LOT of stuff out, but Americans are all like "USA, USA, USA"!)
Click to expand...


You don't piss me off... I only read a small portion of your propaganda and skip the rest.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Paid for post people will do that



Yes, someone is paying people to post on message boards that have all of 200 active members. 

No, really.


----------



## koshergrl

BlueGin said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done dealing with his dumb ass. He's just a typical left loon. Worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably a paid spammer anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> . He gets shellacked and claims victory. What a dope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paid for post people will do that
Click to expand...

They're also some of the sickest ppl on the internet as often they're paid to click porn. They have a vested interest in keeping women in the sex industry....and therefore a vested interest in unregulated, coerced abortion.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat, GFY. Now what are you going to do it about it old man, pester me to death? Get lost, loon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I'm enjoying the space in your head I occupy Rent Free.  I'm just not going to let you get away with saying stupid things...
> 
> Just because you use your personality as birth control, doesn't mean you should limit other people's options.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you mean like the woman in Gosnell's clinic that changed their mind and were strapped down, drugged and given abortions anyway... Then sent home with life threatening infections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, was it a "woman" or was it a "their"..
> 
> Because Gosnell was never charged with that.
> 
> Now Gosnell was a horrible doctor.  I wouldn't even call him a "Doctor".  But when you have one standard of care for people of means and one for poor people, things like him are going to happen.
Click to expand...


The woman came forward and told her story along with many others who were sent home with baby parts still inside them. Of which you know since it was widely reported... Even in articles on the Libby mothership Huffington post.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat, GFY. Now what are you going to do it about it old man, pester me to death? Get lost, loon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I'm enjoying the space in your head I occupy Rent Free.  I'm just not going to let you get away with saying stupid things...
> 
> Just because you use your personality as birth control, doesn't mean you should limit other people's options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I posted that a month ago, loser. Go blow your b/f


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> They're also some of the sickest ppl on the internet as often they're paid to click porn. They have a vested interest in keeping women in the sex industry....and therefore a vested interest in unregulated, coerced abortion.



Wow, so you think only hookers and porn stars are having abortions?  

(psst. Psst. Hookers and porn stars actually know how to use birth control.)


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done dealing with his dumb ass. He's just a typical left loon. Worthless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably a paid spammer anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> . He gets shellacked and claims victory. What a dope
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Paid for post people will do that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're also some of the sickest ppl on the internet as often they're paid to click porn. They have a vested interest in keeping women in the sex industry....and therefore a vested interest in unregulated, coerced abortion.
Click to expand...


The only place I deal with them is on boards. I avoid them like the plague in public, I have to, we have children and they are NEVER to be trusted around children


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> The woman came forward and told her story along with many others who were sent home with baby parts still inside them. Of which you know since it was widely reported... Even in articles on the Libby mothership Huffington post.



Except, again, her story wasn't credible enough to impress Prosecutors who were willing to charge Gosnell with anything they could think of.  

Gosnell was a quack.  Too bad we don't live in a country with universal health care where poor women can get safe abortions just like rich women do.  

OH. Wait. I don't think that's where you wanted to go with this.


----------



## BullKurtz

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, I would pay money for the joy of pissing off religious assholes.
> 
> Now, if someone wanted to have a rational discussion about abortion and reducing the number of them, I'm down with that, too.
> 
> You want less abortions?  Better sex education, more birth control, universal health care and paid family leave.
> 
> The Europeans have already figured this out. (The Europeans have figured a LOT of stuff out, but Americans are all like "USA, USA, USA"!)



This isn't about abortion ya fucking doorknob....it's about the savagery connected to the procedure....a living human child ripped from it's sanctuary, murdered, and then sold for parts.  Your ilk's defense of the witch in the video is yelling at those horrified by her blase blase demeanor.....She should lose her license to practice...the oath she took said very clearly "do no harm"....


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you mean like the woman in Gosnell's clinic that changed their mind and were strapped down, drugged and given abortions anyway... Then sent home with life threatening infections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, was it a "woman" or was it a "their"..
> 
> Because Gosnell was never charged with that.
> 
> Now Gosnell was a horrible doctor.  I wouldn't even call him a "Doctor".  But when you have one standard of care for people of means and one for poor people, things like him are going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The woman came forward and told her story along with many others who were sent home with baby parts still inside them. Of which you know since it was widely reported... Even in articles on the Libby mothership Huffington post.
Click to expand...


He's making excuses for Gosnell....the murderer


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> I posted that a month ago, loser. Go blow your b/f



Yeah, but when I did it, it was actually FUNNY!


----------



## BlueGin

Abortion is a big money making industry. They must protect their investments.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted that a month ago, loser. Go blow your b/f
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but when I did it, it was actually FUNNY!
Click to expand...


In your tiny little mind, asshole. You're funny alright...in a queer way


----------



## BlueGin

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you mean like the woman in Gosnell's clinic that changed their mind and were strapped down, drugged and given abortions anyway... Then sent home with life threatening infections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, was it a "woman" or was it a "their"..
> 
> Because Gosnell was never charged with that.
> 
> Now Gosnell was a horrible doctor.  I wouldn't even call him a "Doctor".  But when you have one standard of care for people of means and one for poor people, things like him are going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The woman came forward and told her story along with many others who were sent home with baby parts still inside them. Of which you know since it was widely reported... Even in articles on the Libby mothership Huffington post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's making excuses for Gosnell....the murderer
Click to expand...


He likes to be controversial to get a reaction. He knows Gosnell is a murderer.


----------



## sakinago

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking news?  Chris Wallace's interview was from 2000.  Here is an article this from 1987. Medical Use of Fetal Tissues Spurs New Abortion Debate - NYTimes.com
> 
> Great scoop there on a story that broke 28 years ago.  How many lives have been saved because of the research done on this tissue?
> 
> And, no, it is not a crime to use this tissue in research.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, it's a felony,  along with preforming a partial birth abortion which was done to obtain some of these "fetal tissue" samples. I'm sorry but I thought "tissue" was only tissue when it wasn't a part of a fully formed organ, or you were referring to a specific part of an organ. But they were harvesting organs from nothing but "fetal tissue." How can that be possible?? I'm so confused because it's just fetal tissue until the third trimester, so how were they able to get functioning organs? The third trimester is a long standing standard of human development since the dawn of humanity. When the magic happens and presto, you become human. I might be a little fuzzy on the long history of the third trimester so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. The gods of moloch and Baal are alive and stronger than ever


----------



## JoeB131

BullKurtz said:


> This isn't about abortion ya fucking doorknob....it's about the savagery connected to the procedure....a living human child ripped from it's sanctuary, murdered, and then sold for parts. Your ilk's defense of the witch in the video is yelling at those horrified by her blase blase demeanor.....She should lose her license to practice...the oath she took said very clearly "do no harm"....



Again, abortion is legal in this country, so not so much. 

fetuses aren't children.  

The women consented to the abortions and the donations of tissue. 

If you guys wanted there to be less abortions, you'd support liberal european socialism... but you don't.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlueGin said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you mean like the woman in Gosnell's clinic that changed their mind and were strapped down, drugged and given abortions anyway... Then sent home with life threatening infections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, was it a "woman" or was it a "their"..
> 
> Because Gosnell was never charged with that.
> 
> Now Gosnell was a horrible doctor.  I wouldn't even call him a "Doctor".  But when you have one standard of care for people of means and one for poor people, things like him are going to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The woman came forward and told her story along with many others who were sent home with baby parts still inside them. Of which you know since it was widely reported... Even in articles on the Libby mothership Huffington post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's making excuses for Gosnell....the murderer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He likes to be controversial to get a reaction. He knows Gosnell is a murderer.
Click to expand...


Everybody in the free world knows Gosnell is a murderer


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> He likes to be controversial to get a reaction. He knows Gosnell is a murderer.



I never denied he was.  

He totally killed poor Mrs. Mognar.


----------



## Dragonlady

koshergrl said:


> Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.



Where do you come up with the shit you spew?  Generally your posts are a reflection of who YOU are?  You're the one who hates women and you're projecting your hatred on to others. 

I post about helping women so they don't have to make a decision to terminate s pregnancy. Real help that lasts throughout their lifetime as a parent. 

You assume women who have abortions are being coerced into making that decision. I know a few women who have had abortions. All of them were adults who made a difficult choice all by themselves. They were not abused or coerced. In many cases, the father of the child knew nothing about their pregnancy. 

I'm waiting for you to just once talk about children, and their needs. Living breathing children living in poverty. I'm waiting for you to talk about helping poor families - not charity work, but community supports for families. 

I'm waiting for you to say something of substance that isn't about your own rage and hatred. I suspect I'll have a long wait for that to happen because other than your hate and anger, you have nothing to contribute.


----------



## Dragonlady

BlueGin said:


> Abortion is a big money making industry. They must protect their investments.



You do realize that doctors make more money when women go through with a pregnancy and delivery, don't you?  A lot more money.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragonlady said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you come up with the shit you spew?  Generally your posts are a reflection of who YOU are?  You're the one who hates women and you're projecting your hatred on to others.
> 
> I post about helping women so they don't have to make a decision to terminate s pregnancy. Real help that lasts throughout their lifetime as a parent.
> 
> You assume women who have abortions are being coerced into making that decision. I know a few women who have had abortions. All of them were adults who made a difficult choice all by themselves. They were not abused or coerced. In many cases, the father of the child knew nothing about their pregnancy.
> 
> I'm waiting for you to just once talk about children, and their needs. Living breathing children living in poverty. I'm waiting for you to talk about helping poor families - not charity work, but community supports for families.
> 
> I'm waiting for you to say something of substance that isn't about your own rage and hatred. I suspect I'll have a long wait for that to happen because other than your hate and anger, you have nothing to contribute.
Click to expand...

This is a thread about killing babies for profit and the abuse of pregnant women...which you defend.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> He's making excuses for Gosnell....the murderer



You anti-choice types created Gosnell. Gosnell operated in PA, a state where abortion is pretty severely restricted, but still happens.


----------



## BullKurtz

George Tiller made a fortune murdering babies....then he got aborted.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you come up with the shit you spew?  Generally your posts are a reflection of who YOU are?  You're the one who hates women and you're projecting your hatred on to others.
> 
> I post about helping women so they don't have to make a decision to terminate s pregnancy. Real help that lasts throughout their lifetime as a parent.
> 
> You assume women who have abortions are being coerced into making that decision. I know a few women who have had abortions. All of them were adults who made a difficult choice all by themselves. They were not abused or coerced. In many cases, the father of the child knew nothing about their pregnancy.
> 
> I'm waiting for you to just once talk about children, and their needs. Living breathing children living in poverty. I'm waiting for you to talk about helping poor families - not charity work, but community supports for families.
> 
> I'm waiting for you to say something of substance that isn't about your own rage and hatred. I suspect I'll have a long wait for that to happen because other than your hate and anger, you have nothing to contribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a thread about killing babies for profit and the abuse of pregnant women...which you defend.
Click to expand...


Now, now, you've destroyed the usual talking point rebuttal


----------



## koshergrl

Dragonlady said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is a big money making industry. They must protect their investments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that doctors make more money when women go through with a pregnancy and delivery, don't you?  A lot more money.
Click to expand...

Abortion clinicians don't. Besides, they like killing babies and abusing pregnant women.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> This is a thread about killing babies for profit and the abuse of pregnant women...which you defend.



Except the women aren't being abused and are the ones who initiated the procedure... but never mind.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's making excuses for Gosnell....the murderer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You anti-choice types created Gosnell. Gosnell operated in PA, a state where abortion is pretty severely restricted, but still happens.
Click to expand...


I told you to GFY. Do it,now


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb maintains gosnell is a hero. Wait till he gets rolling and lets his hatred for the women he butchered shine through. And that is ultimately what abortion is all about...the state sanctioned abuse and murder of women. The dead babies are just the profitable frosting on the cake to these sick, abusive psychopaths. Yes that includes the women who get their jollies thinking of other women on the tables too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you come up with the shit you spew?  Generally your posts are a reflection of who YOU are?  You're the one who hates women and you're projecting your hatred on to others.
> 
> I post about helping women so they don't have to make a decision to terminate s pregnancy. Real help that lasts throughout their lifetime as a parent.
> 
> You assume women who have abortions are being coerced into making that decision. I know a few women who have had abortions. All of them were adults who made a difficult choice all by themselves. They were not abused or coerced. In many cases, the father of the child knew nothing about their pregnancy.
> 
> I'm waiting for you to just once talk about children, and their needs. Living breathing children living in poverty. I'm waiting for you to talk about helping poor families - not charity work, but community supports for families.
> 
> I'm waiting for you to say something of substance that isn't about your own rage and hatred. I suspect I'll have a long wait for that to happen because other than your hate and anger, you have nothing to contribute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a thread about killing babies for profit and the abuse of pregnant women...which you defend.
Click to expand...

Where's the profit?


----------



## Fishlore

There is nothing surprising about a deceivingly edited scare video by social conservatives. The technique has been used countless times. In fact, one of the gents associated with the baby-parts fake was similarly involved with the infamous "pimp" ACORN video a few years back. As a group, the social conservatives are low-education and get their information exclusively from TV. Video is the closest they come to peer-reviewed scholarly journals.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Fishlore said:


> There is nothing surprising about a deceivingly edited scare video by social conservatives. The technique has been used countless times. In fact, one of the gents associated with the baby-parts fake was similarly involved with the infamous "pimp" ACORN video a few years back. As a group, the social conservatives are low-education and get their information exclusively from TV. Video is the closest they come to peer-reviewed scholarly journals.



Except the entire video is online. Next time check before you post an epic fail


----------



## sakinago

Dragonlady said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is a big money making industry. They must protect their investments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that doctors make more money when women go through with a pregnancy and delivery, don't you?  A lot more money.
Click to expand...

Yea but it's a niche market. Regular Coke is the biggest seller so why make diet coke?


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's making excuses for Gosnell....the murderer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You anti-choice types created Gosnell. Gosnell operated in PA, a state where abortion is pretty severely restricted, but still happens.
Click to expand...


No. You anti life people who want to de regulate the industry created Gosnell


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about abortion ya fucking doorknob....it's about the savagery connected to the procedure....a living human child ripped from it's sanctuary, murdered, and then sold for parts. Your ilk's defense of the witch in the video is yelling at those horrified by her blase blase demeanor.....She should lose her license to practice...the oath she took said very clearly "do no harm"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, abortion is legal in this country, so not so much.
> 
> fetuses aren't children.
> 
> The women consented to the abortions and the donations of tissue.
> 
> If you guys wanted there to be less abortions, you'd support liberal european socialism... but you don't.
Click to expand...


Fetuses are children if the woman carrying t says it is in liberal la la land


----------



## BlueGin

Dragonlady said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is a big money making industry. They must protect their investments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that doctors make more money when women go through with a pregnancy and delivery, don't you?  A lot more money.
Click to expand...

 
Abortion doctors don't. They make more money charging for abortions.


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is a big money making industry. They must protect their investments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that doctors make more money when women go through with a pregnancy and delivery, don't you?  A lot more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but it's a niche market. Regular Coke is the biggest seller so why make diet coke?
Click to expand...

Most abortionists can't work as doctors outside of abortion clinics. They're charlatans, quacks and sickos...and they have already been identified as such by the real medical community.


----------



## BlueGin

koshergrl said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is a big money making industry. They must protect their investments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that doctors make more money when women go through with a pregnancy and delivery, don't you?  A lot more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but it's a niche market. Regular Coke is the biggest seller so why make diet coke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most abortionists can't work as doctors outside of abortion clinics. They're charlatans, quacks and sickos...and they have already been identified as such by the real medical community.
Click to expand...


See Gosnell 's clinic where non medically trained staff performed abortions. Wonder if dragon lady would hop on that table willingly knowing that?


----------



## koshergrl

BlueGin said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is a big money making industry. They must protect their investments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that doctors make more money when women go through with a pregnancy and delivery, don't you?  A lot more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but it's a niche market. Regular Coke is the biggest seller so why make diet coke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most abortionists can't work as doctors outside of abortion clinics. They're charlatans, quacks and sickos...and they have already been identified as such by the real medical community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See Gosnell 's clinic where non medically trained staff performed abortions. Wonder if dragon lady would hop on that table willingly knowing that?
Click to expand...

And in the video the pp doktor talks about how some won't do the illegal change of procedure to accommodate harvest, but there are others she 'trains'. The ones she trains either don't know our laws or aren't doctors.


----------



## BlueGin

Hey Joe... Let's test this theory. Would you get a vasectomy from an un licensed staff member at a clinic that was hired to mop floors?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

BlueGin said:


> Hey Joe... Let's test this theory. Would you get a vasectomy from an un licensed staff member at a clinic that was hired to mop floors?



I doubt there is anything to snip


----------



## sakinago

SassyIrishLass said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Joe... Let's test this theory. Would you get a vasectomy from an un licensed staff member at a clinic that was hired to mop floors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt there is anything to snip
Click to expand...

Guys come on it's just fetal tissue


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Joe... Let's test this theory. Would you get a vasectomy from an un licensed staff member at a clinic that was hired to mop floors?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt there is anything to snip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guys come on it's just fetal tissue
Click to expand...

It doesn't feel anything...


----------



## Dragonlady

koshergrl said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is a big money making industry. They must protect their investments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that doctors make more money when women go through with a pregnancy and delivery, don't you?  A lot more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but it's a niche market. Regular Coke is the biggest seller so why make diet coke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most abortionists can't work as doctors outside of abortion clinics. They're charlatans, quacks and sickos...and they have already been identified as such by the real medical community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See Gosnell 's clinic where non medically trained staff performed abortions. Wonder if dragon lady would hop on that table willingly knowing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in the video the pp doktor talks about how some won't do the illegal change of procedure to accommodate harvest, but there are others she 'trains'. The ones she trains either don't know our laws or aren't doctors.
Click to expand...


Did she really say that or did the editors cut the footage to make it appear that she said it?  You don't know what she really said at all. 

As for Dr. Gosnell, why wasn't his clinic shut down for unsafe conditions?  Perhaps if abortion providers weren't threatened, ostracized and shot by right wing zealots, women could go to any hospital and have safe abortions. 

The more you haters fight against providing safe abortions for those who seek them, the worse conditions become and the more women will die. I know you won't stop until women who seek abortions are dying on a regular basis. 

You still haven't answered the question:  what will you do to provide financial supports to poor families?  Paid maternity leave with a guaranteed job waiting on you return?  Subsidized day care?  Income support?

Where are your programs to help young families?  

All you talk about is the evils of abortion. You need to talk about children and families and helping people so that they have other choices.


----------



## koshergrl

Gosnell was reported repeatedly. He wasn't shut down....and PP continued to send women to him. 
The organ selling video is posted, in it's entirety. The doktor said what she said...even her boss doesn't deny it. Now get out of here you disgusting predatory acolyte, you're making everybody sick.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying POS.  They want you to mind your own fucking business and stay out of their decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you nitwits said about Kermit Gosnell too. It's not like you are in the habit of telling the truth. So forgive me if I laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said that about Gosnell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. Now who's lying...
Click to expand...

Find one quote from one person calling that monster a hero or shut the fuck up, kosher girl.


----------



## sakinago

Dragonlady said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that doctors make more money when women go through with a pregnancy and delivery, don't you?  A lot more money.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea but it's a niche market. Regular Coke is the biggest seller so why make diet coke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most abortionists can't work as doctors outside of abortion clinics. They're charlatans, quacks and sickos...and they have already been identified as such by the real medical community.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See Gosnell 's clinic where non medically trained staff performed abortions. Wonder if dragon lady would hop on that table willingly knowing that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in the video the pp doktor talks about how some won't do the illegal change of procedure to accommodate harvest, but there are others she 'trains'. The ones she trains either don't know our laws or aren't doctors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did she really say that or did the editors cut the footage to make it appear that she said it?  You don't know what she really said at all.
> 
> As for Dr. Gosnell, why wasn't his clinic shut down for unsafe conditions?  Perhaps if abortion providers weren't threatened, ostracized and shot by right wing zealots, women could go to any hospital and have safe abortions.
> 
> The more you haters fight against providing safe abortions for those who seek them, the worse conditions become and the more women will die. I know you won't stop until women who seek abortions are dying on a regular basis.
> 
> You still haven't answered the question:  what will you do to provide financial supports to poor families?  Paid maternity leave with a guaranteed job waiting on you return?  Subsidized day care?  Income support?
> 
> Where are your programs to help young families?
> 
> All you talk about is the evils of abortion. You need to talk about children and families and helping people so that they have other choices.
Click to expand...

There are thousands of programs, government and private to support poor families. The average family on welfare is receiving 60,000 a year in benefits (housing, food stamps, ebt cards, etc.)  Not to mention you can make a pretty penny giving your baby up for adoption to families who have to go to other countries to adopt, and spend even more. They would be glad to adopt for 50,000 as opposed to 80 to 100,000 from other countries. And just because orange is the new black has a character shooting an abortion nurse doesn't mean it's happening left and right.  Be reasonable. The fact is we don't have an established definition on life in the womb and are not allowed to have that debate. Abortion is something done for convenience of the "greater good" of society bc we can't afford these babies, just like nazi Germany couldn't afford to care for the mentally challenged of the society. A lot like ancient peoples sacrificing their newborns to Baal in order to receive prosperity in life, too bad they didn't have abortion back then. This is not a new issue for humanity, the thought of killing off the weak, unwanted and unworthy stems from the thinking that our resources are limited so we need to off more people and that way I'll receive more of whatever resource I want. Those who love Margaret Sanger should read up on what she said about black people, and her love letters to hitler. I'm not sure why we are tearing down monuments of confederate generals and not monuments to her. I'd rather be a slave than exterminated, extermination is a whole different level of racism


----------



## sakinago

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you nitwits said about Kermit Gosnell too. It's not like you are in the habit of telling the truth. So forgive me if I laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said that about Gosnell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. Now who's lying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find one quote from one person calling that monster a hero or shut the fuck up, kosher girl.
Click to expand...

I'll defend gosnell. He made a point in his trial, and I'm paraphrasing his statement, but what's the difference between terminating a fetus on the outside of the womb, as opposed to inside of the womb? End result is still the same, and it's a fetus. What was the point of leaving the head in the vagina in a partial birth abortion, why not pull it completely out and take care of your business there? Less chance for injury for the mother (guess you can't use the word mother, so carrier) less chance of injury for the carrier


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat, GFY. Now what are you going to do it about it old man, pester me to death? Get lost, loon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I'm enjoying the space in your head I occupy Rent Free.  I'm just not going to let you get away with saying stupid things...
> 
> Just because you use your personality as birth control, doesn't mean you should limit other people's options.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Such a nice Christian lady you are.  A beautiful cross on your avatar and a ton of fucks in your posts.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat, GFY. Now what are you going to do it about it old man, pester me to death? Get lost, loon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I'm enjoying the space in your head I occupy Rent Free.  I'm just not going to let you get away with saying stupid things...
> 
> Just because you use your personality as birth control, doesn't mean you should limit other people's options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a nice Christian lady you are.  A beautiful cross on your avatar and a ton of fucks in your posts.
Click to expand...


Says the most foul mouthed POS on this forum. Post fail


----------



## onefour1

The true story behind planned parenthood:


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat, GFY. Now what are you going to do it about it old man, pester me to death? Get lost, loon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I'm enjoying the space in your head I occupy Rent Free.  I'm just not going to let you get away with saying stupid things...
> 
> Just because you use your personality as birth control, doesn't mean you should limit other people's options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a nice Christian lady you are.  A beautiful cross on your avatar and a ton of fucks in your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the most foul mouthed POS on this forum. Post fail
Click to expand...

So, you missed the part where you are a hypocrite?


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right ... So they can perform illegal abortions and make money selling spare baby parts for profit. The lefty agenda is well known.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you nitwits said about Kermit Gosnell too. It's not like you are in the habit of telling the truth. So forgive me if I laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said that about Gosnell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. Now who's lying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find one quote from one person calling that monster a hero or shut the fuck up, kosher girl.
Click to expand...

Go back to the time period of the trial, there are multiples. Joeb thinks Gosnell is a hero. He'll say it again, don't worry. He's that stupid.


----------



## sakinago

I'll defend gosnell. He made a point in his trial, and I'm paraphrasing his statement, but what's the difference between terminating a fetus on the outside of the womb, as opposed to inside of the womb? End result is still the same, and it's a fetus. What was the point of leaving the head in the vagina in a partial birth abortion, why not pull it completely out and take care of your business there? Less chance for injury for the mother (guess you can't use the word mother, so carrier) less chance of injury for thecarrier


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you nitwits said about Kermit Gosnell too. It's not like you are in the habit of telling the truth. So forgive me if I laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said that about Gosnell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. Now who's lying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find one quote from one person calling that monster a hero or shut the fuck up, kosher girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll defend gosnell. He made a point in his trial, and I'm paraphrasing his statement, but what's the difference between terminating a fetus on the outside of the womb, as opposed to inside of the womb? End result is still the same, and it's a fetus. What was the point of leaving the head in the vagina in a partial birth abortion, why not pull it completely out and take care of your business there? Less chance for injury for the mother (guess you can't use the word mother, so carrier) less chance of injury for the carrier
Click to expand...

 yeah tell that to the families of the many women he tortured and killed during his illustrious career.


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> I'll defend gosnell. He made a point in his trial, and I'm paraphrasing his statement, but what's the difference between terminating a fetus on the outside of the womb, as opposed to inside of the womb? End result is still the same, and it's a fetus. What was the point of leaving the head in the vagina in a partial birth abortion, why not pull it completely out and take care of your business there? Less chance for injury for the mother (guess you can't use the word mother, so carrier) less chance of injury for thecarrier


As I always say...baby killers are fine with killing people at any age.


----------



## Dragonlady

koshergrl said:


> Gosnell was reported repeatedly. He wasn't shut down....and PP continued to send women to him.
> The organ selling video is posted, in it's entirety. The doktor said what she said...even her boss doesn't deny it. Now get out of here you disgusting predatory acolyte, you're making everybody sick.



Your figures of $60M per year for welfare families is, like all of your other postings, a lie. That particular lie has been thoroughly debunked. The average family benefits package for a single parent with 2 children is $28,000 per year, and that figure includes the value of Medicaid. 

Keep posting your lies and I'll continue to prove you're lying.


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> I'll defend gosnell. He made a point in his trial, and I'm paraphrasing his statement, but what's the difference between terminating a fetus on the outside of the womb, as opposed to inside of the womb? End result is still the same, and it's a fetus. What was the point of leaving the head in the vagina in a partial birth abortion, why not pull it completely out and take care of your business there? Less chance for injury for the mother (guess you can't use the word mother, so carrier) less chance of injury for thecarrier


See pretty much all the death cultists see gosnell as a hero, and the fetuses and carriers as of zero value except to make $$$


----------



## sakinago

koshergrl said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll defend gosnell. He made a point in his trial, and I'm paraphrasing his statement, but what's the difference between terminating a fetus on the outside of the womb, as opposed to inside of the womb? End result is still the same, and it's a fetus. What was the point of leaving the head in the vagina in a partial birth abortion, why not pull it completely out and take care of your business there? Less chance for injury for the mother (guess you can't use the word mother, so carrier) less chance of injury for thecarrier
> 
> 
> 
> As I always say...baby killers are fine with killing people at any age.
Click to expand...

40% of black babies aborted, I'd say Margaret Sanger wouldn't be happy with those numbers, needs to be higher for her in this day and age. I remember her being taught as a very important figure in our history in nursing school and all the good she has done for our society.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat, GFY. Now what are you going to do it about it old man, pester me to death? Get lost, loon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I'm enjoying the space in your head I occupy Rent Free.  I'm just not going to let you get away with saying stupid things...
> 
> Just because you use your personality as birth control, doesn't mean you should limit other people's options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a nice Christian lady you are.  A beautiful cross on your avatar and a ton of fucks in your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the most foul mouthed POS on this forum. Post fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you missed the part where you are a hypocrite?
Click to expand...


Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this


----------



## sakinago

koshergrl said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll defend gosnell. He made a point in his trial, and I'm paraphrasing his statement, but what's the difference between terminating a fetus on the outside of the womb, as opposed to inside of the womb? End result is still the same, and it's a fetus. What was the point of leaving the head in the vagina in a partial birth abortion, why not pull it completely out and take care of your business there? Less chance for injury for the mother (guess you can't use the word mother, so carrier) less chance of injury for thecarrier
> 
> 
> 
> See pretty much all the death cultists see gosnell as a hero, and the fetuses and carriers as of zero value except to make $$$
Click to expand...

Making a point kosher girl, if it is just a fetus then why bother making sure it's still inside the "carrier" to "terminate" it


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I'm enjoying the space in your head I occupy Rent Free.  I'm just not going to let you get away with saying stupid things...
> 
> Just because you use your personality as birth control, doesn't mean you should limit other people's options.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a nice Christian lady you are.  A beautiful cross on your avatar and a ton of fucks in your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the most foul mouthed POS on this forum. Post fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you missed the part where you are a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this
Click to expand...

You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't perform illegal abortions or sell any tissue for a profit. The entire video proves this. Stop being a lying piece of shit..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you nitwits said about Kermit Gosnell too. It's not like you are in the habit of telling the truth. So forgive me if I laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said that about Gosnell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. Now who's lying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find one quote from one person calling that monster a hero or shut the fuck up, kosher girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back to the time period of the trial, there are multiples. Joeb thinks Gosnell is a hero. He'll say it again, don't worry. He's that stupid.
Click to expand...

So, you cannot produce one.  So, then shut the fuck up.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a nice Christian lady you are.  A beautiful cross on your avatar and a ton of fucks in your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Says the most foul mouthed POS on this forum. Post fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you missed the part where you are a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.
Click to expand...


Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such a nice Christian lady you are.  A beautiful cross on your avatar and a ton of fucks in your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the most foul mouthed POS on this forum. Post fail
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you missed the part where you are a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?
Click to expand...

Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you nitwits said about Kermit Gosnell too. It's not like you are in the habit of telling the truth. So forgive me if I laugh at you.
> 
> 
> 
> No one said that about Gosnell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they did. Now who's lying...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Find one quote from one person calling that monster a hero or shut the fuck up, kosher girl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back to the time period of the trial, there are multiples. Joeb thinks Gosnell is a hero. He'll say it again, don't worry. He's that stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you cannot produce one.  So, then shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...

And as I said would happen, people are still openly supporting gosnell in this thread. Among them his no. 1 fan, joeb.


----------



## paddymurphy

No, he is not.  Don't you realize how obvious your dishonesty is when you lie about what another poster wrote on a thread. There is not a single comment that could rationally be called a defense of Gosnell.


----------



## sakinago

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the most foul mouthed POS on this forum. Post fail
> 
> 
> 
> So, you missed the part where you are a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
Click to expand...

Here's an intellectual question I've been asking over and over, what's the difference between terminating a fetus on the outside as opposed to inside? No one seems to be addressing that, that seems like an intellectual debate to be had and it deals heavily with abortion law so why not talk about that


----------



## Rexx Taylor

this is beginning to sound like a steven king movie.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Says the most foul mouthed POS on this forum. Post fail
> 
> 
> 
> So, you missed the part where you are a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
Click to expand...

Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you missed the part where you are a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's an intellectual question I've been asking over and over, what's the difference between terminating a fetus on the outside as opposed to inside? No one seems to be addressing that, that seems like an intellectual debate to be had and it deals heavily with abortion law so why not talk about that
Click to expand...

There is no difference. It's murder no matter how old.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you missed the part where you are a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.
Click to expand...


Paddy is undoubtedly still a virgin


----------



## BlueGin

Paddy Murphy would totally get a vasectomy done by an untrained worker at a clinic that was hired to mop floors.


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Paddy is undoubtedly still a virgin
Click to expand...

Let's hope so.


----------



## sakinago

koshergrl said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's an intellectual question I've been asking over and over, what's the difference between terminating a fetus on the outside as opposed to inside? No one seems to be addressing that, that seems like an intellectual debate to be had and it deals heavily with abortion law so why not talk about that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no difference. It's murder no matter how old.
Click to expand...

But I want paddy to answer, I'm obviously too motivated by racism, hate, Jesus, and my furors of the right wing, to be able be intellectual. So I need someone smarter to tell me


----------



## Dragonlady

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you missed the part where you are a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.
Click to expand...


Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered. 

Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?


----------



## sakinago

Dragonlady said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, if I gave a damn what some hateful old troll like you thought it might matter but I don't so it doesn't. Understand this
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.
> 
> Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?
Click to expand...

Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life. This seems to be the topic that pro-choice has to avoid at all costs.


----------



## Care4all

Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?

So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven.  (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)

It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said.   So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine...  Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.

Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.

The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.


----------



## evince

Care4all said:


> Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?
> 
> So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven.  (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)
> 
> It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said.   So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine...  Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.
> 
> Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.
> 
> The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone pregnant to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.




well said..... you are the best care4all


----------



## Dragonlady

The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.


----------



## sakinago

sakinago said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.
> 
> Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
Click to expand...




sakinago said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea how old I am. Just another example of you making assertions you cannot back up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.
> 
> Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
Click to expand...




Care4all said:


> Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?
> 
> So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven.  (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)
> 
> It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said.   So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine...  Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.
> 
> Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.
> 
> The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.


finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability? 

You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability


----------



## evince

there are many beliefs in this world

why only one source to decide it for EVERYONE?


----------



## koshergrl

Dragonlady said:


> The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.


How odd that God said he knew Jeremiah before he was formed, then.


----------



## sakinago

evince said:


> there are many beliefs in this world
> 
> why only one source to decide it for EVERYONE?


I'm not citing any source other than the thought that human life needs to be protected, because when we devalue human life of the unseen, our enemies, those we consider below us, or across an ocean we fall onto a path of the less of them out there the better for me, which leads to many many bad things. Atrocities that normal people like you and me rationalize and commit bc we consider them now moral to do


----------



## koshergrl

The baby killers continue to ignore the fact that this isn't a discussion of whether or not babykilling is cool. The issue here is did the doc break the law when she altered procedures to accommodate harvest of dead babies. And she did. At least, she said she did. In great and charming detail. She put women in danger to perform illegal procedures for money. That is, of course, the textbook definition of PP. Killing babies and abusing women for money. Awesome.


----------



## evince

yes we need to value female bodies and their choices for there own bodies


----------



## evince

koshergrl said:


> The baby killers continue to ignore the fact that this isn't a discussion of whether or not babykilling is cool. The issue here is did the doc break the law when she altered procedures to accommodate harvest of dead babies. And she did. At least, she said she did. In great and charming detail. She put women in danger to perform illegal procedures for money. That is, of course, the textbook definition of PP. Killing babies and abusing women for money. Awesome.




so you tried and convicted her already?


----------



## koshergrl

evince said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The baby killers continue to ignore the fact that this isn't a discussion of whether or not babykilling is cool. The issue here is did the doc break the law when she altered procedures to accommodate harvest of dead babies. And she did. At least, she said she did. In great and charming detail. She put women in danger to perform illegal procedures for money. That is, of course, the textbook definition of PP. Killing babies and abusing women for money. Awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you tried and convicted her already?
Click to expand...

Yawn. Now you're boring. Keep trying to divert.


----------



## sakinago

evince said:


> yes we need to value female bodies and their choices for there own bodies


But what about the body of the fetus? It's a separate entity of the mother, and why does that argument suddenly change at the third trimester, or when the fetus is wanted and a drunk driver hits a pregnant women in the first trimester and that fetus dies, then that becomes murder.


----------



## Care4all

sakinago said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?
> 
> 
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.
> 
> Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah....why are you under this delusion I (or anyone with two functioning brain cells) takes you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.
> 
> Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?
> 
> So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven.  (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)
> 
> It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said.   So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine...  Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.
> 
> Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.
> 
> The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?
> 
> You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability
Click to expand...

As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.

As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....

so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong?  And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.

Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made....  if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes...  I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.

ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.


----------



## koshergrl

Yup babykillers believe in the inalienable right to kill any person at their mercy.


----------



## Care4all

Do you believe the mothers WHO DONATED tissue or other organs of their fetuses were not told that the procedure would be done with care, to handle the organ or tissue donation and were not made aware of any risks before they agreed to donating their fetus for medical and scientific research?  I'm pretty certain the donors were well informed.  If donors were never made aware of any risks then that would be wrong....there is no proof that the donor mothers were not made aware of any risks.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> No. You anti life people who want to de regulate the industry created Gosnell



PA has the strictest abortion limits in the country, in case you missed _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_.  It was a landmark case.  so it did put out the valid providers, and left Gosnell in place.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Hey Joe... Let's test this theory. Would you get a vasectomy from an un licensed staff member at a clinic that was hired to mop floors?



No, i wouldn't. 

But that's my whole point.  We are the only country in the world that doesn't provide health coverage as a RIGHT for every citizen.  THen you all scratch you big monkey craniums and wonder why a guy like Gosnell happens.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Fetuses are children if the woman carrying t says it is in liberal la la land



Well, no, that's the real world. 

If she wants it, "The Baby is due in September." 

If she doesn't, "I've got to take care of that problem on Tuesday."  

That's the real world.  Deal with it.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> Gosnell was reported repeatedly. He wasn't shut down....and PP continued to send women to him.
> The organ selling video is posted, in it's entirety. The doktor said what she said...even her boss doesn't deny it. Now get out of here you disgusting predatory acolyte, you're making everybody sick.



PP never referred any woman to Gosnell. 

and they talked about administrative costs.  Do you really think anyone is making money on a $30.00 tissue sample?


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> yeah tell that to the families of the many women he tortured and killed during his illustrious career.



You mean the ones who were co-conspirators, by your view?


----------



## HenryBHough

JoeB131 said:


> Do you really think anyone is making money on a $30.00 tissue sample?



So, at $30 it's not selling body parts.

Therefore a hooker that charges only $25 for a lay isn't a prostitute.  Now, since that's your logic, at what time does "prostitute" kick in?  $50?  $100?  $1,000?


----------



## JoeB131

paddymurphy said:


> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond. Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those. You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not. To you, because you think it, it is true. You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.



Paddy, keep in mind this is what any argument with Fat Irish Sow will go like

FIS- "Unsupported assertation about someone I don't like!" 

Anyone - "Uh, no, here's the documented facts about the matter!" 

FIS - "GFY and leave me alone, you big meanyhead!"


----------



## JoeB131

HenryBHough said:


> So, at $30 it's not selling body parts.
> 
> Therefore a hooker that charges only $25 for a lay isn't a prostitute. Now, since that's your logic, at what time does "prostitute" kick in? $50? $100? $1,000?



No, at $30.00 it's a donation.   It costs more than $30.00 to extract it, package it and ship it and make sure the paperwork that is required by the government occurs. 

So let's be clear what would happen to these tissues otherwise.  They'd be dumped into a landfill as medical waste. 

This way, they help find cures for diseases.   Yes, I know that is horrible to people who call themselves, "Pro-Life".


----------



## HenryBHough

JoeB131 said:


> No, at $30.00 it's a donation.



OK, so by your logic a hooker who charges $30 for a lay is not a prostitute so long as the $30 is used to cover the cost of a condom and a motel room for an hour or so.  Got it.  The $30 is just a donation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Delta4Embassy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, the abortion was 'as bad as it can get.' Not the doing something necessary however unsavory with the corpus afterwords.
Click to expand...


Selling body parts is "necessary"?  Then why is it against the law?


----------



## koshergrl

It's illegal to alter the procedure to facilitate harvest. With or without nonexistent permission. Try again to justify illegally performing illegal procedures on vulnerable, desperate women. For illegal profit.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> How odd that God said he knew Jeremiah before he was formed, then.



yet the bible also says causing a miscarriage is a penalty of only a fine -- Exodus 21:22-23, 

_If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. _


and that child is only to be counted when he reaches one month of age.  Numbers 3:15-16 and Leviticus 27:6. 

Further, God had no problem telling Moses to kill pregnant women.  

_And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him._ -- Numbers 31:15-17

God also had no problem condeming unfaithful wives to having abortions...

T_he priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ... 
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed_. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

God's law calls for pregnant women to be killed if they got pregnant outside of marriage. 

_Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt._ -- Genesis 38:24


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> It's illegal to alter the procedure to facilitate harvest. With or without nonexistent permission. Try again to justify illegally performing illegal procedures on vulnerable, desperate women. For illegal profit.



So what medical school did you attend to determine what is a "proper" procedure?


----------



## JoeB131

HenryBHough said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, at $30.00 it's a donation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, so by your logic a hooker who charges $30 for a lay is not a prostitute so long as the $30 is used to cover the cost of a condom and a motel room for an hour or so.  Got it.  The $30 is just a donation.
Click to expand...


Given your personality, I suspect you know more about hookers than I do.


----------



## Cecilie1200

evince said:


> yes we need to value female bodies and their choices for there own bodies



Hey, if the fetus is "part of the woman's body", as the left continually and incorrectly tells us, how come the "mothers" aren't getting the money for the sale of their aborted "body part"?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.



The Bible says nothing of the sort.  And "well of souls"?  What in the blue bloody hell are you driveling about?


----------



## sakinago

Care4all said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
> 
> 
> 
> Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.
> 
> Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you just won't shut the fuck up and go away. If you did not care that I repeatedly you to be both a liar and an idiot, you would not respond.  Hours ago I provided five quotes from Margaret Sanger that revealed he to be completely opposed to abortion. You have yet to even try toe prove those quotes inaccurate or to provide others that contradict those.  You are one of those lazy fucks who really does not care whether what they say is true or not.  To you, because you think it, it is true.  You are a stunted intellect with no curiosity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.
> 
> Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?
> 
> So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven.  (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)
> 
> It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said.   So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine...  Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.
> 
> Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.
> 
> The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?
> 
> You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.
> 
> As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....
> 
> so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong?  And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.
> 
> Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made....  if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes...  I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.
> 
> ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.
Click to expand...

See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply. 
And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic. 
As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion  is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die,  and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize


----------



## Care4all

sakinago said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.
> 
> Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baby killers are scary when they're fired up. Look how faggy speaks to women...in a threatening, demeaning way. Can you imagine if he impregnated a girl and didn't want his bf to know? Or if you were his daughter and hid a pregnancy from him out of fear until the sixth or seventh month? Can you imagine being dragged to Gosnell by him? I can. Because it happens every single day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.
> 
> Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?
> 
> So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven.  (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)
> 
> It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said.   So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine...  Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.
> 
> Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.
> 
> The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?
> 
> You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.
> 
> As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....
> 
> so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong?  And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.
> 
> Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made....  if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes...  I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.
> 
> ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
> And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
> As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion  is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die,  and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize
Click to expand...

See, I agree and disagree with you.  And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.  

There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable....  Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen....  today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.

Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching.  And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.

However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree.  Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...

I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....


----------



## koshergrl

But its okay to use ultrasounds if it's to facilitate 'donations' (aka "sales").


----------



## Jroc

Care4all said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.
> 
> Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?
> 
> 
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.
> 
> Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?
> 
> So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven.  (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)
> 
> It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said.   So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine...  Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.
> 
> Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.
> 
> The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?
> 
> You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.
> 
> As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....
> 
> so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong?  And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.
> 
> Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made....  if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes...  I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.
> 
> ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
> And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
> As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion  is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die,  and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, I agree and disagree with you.  And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.
> 
> There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable....  Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen....  today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.
> 
> Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching.  And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.
> 
> However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree.  Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...
> 
> I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....
Click to expand...



There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening"  You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?


----------



## koshergrl

Jroc said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?
> 
> So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven.  (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)
> 
> It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said.   So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine...  Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.
> 
> Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.
> 
> The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?
> 
> You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.
> 
> As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....
> 
> so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong?  And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.
> 
> Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made....  if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes...  I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.
> 
> ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
> And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
> As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion  is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die,  and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, I agree and disagree with you.  And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.
> 
> There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable....  Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen....  today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.
> 
> Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching.  And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.
> 
> However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree.  Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...
> 
> I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening"  You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?
Click to expand...

They're sick. They need our prayers but they also need to be called out and stopped.


----------



## Dragonlady

koshergrl said:


> They're sick. They need our prayers but they also need to be called out and stopped.



YOU need to be called out and stopped.  If you don't believe in abortion, don't have an abortion.  But you have no right to tell other women that they must have a child they cannot afford.  That is between the woman, her doctor, and her God.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragonlady said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're sick. They need our prayers but they also need to be called out and stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU need to be called out and stopped.  If you don't believe in abortion, don't have an abortion.  But you have no right to tell other women that they must have a child they cannot afford.  That is between the woman, her doctor, and her God.
Click to expand...

Racketeering, murder, assault. That's the abortion industry. And you wallow in it.


----------



## sakinago

Care4all said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.
> 
> Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?
> 
> 
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you continue to post lies?  Women aren't being dragged to abortion clinics against their will. They also aren't having abortions in the third trimester in large numbers either. Less than 1% of abortions are being performed in the third trimester and those are abortions where tests indicate the fetus isn't viable, or the life of the mother is endangered.
> 
> Have you ever posted any verifiable facts about abortion?  If your position is so true and righteous, why can't you support it with facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?
> 
> So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven.  (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)
> 
> It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said.   So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine...  Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.
> 
> Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.
> 
> The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?
> 
> You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.
> 
> As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....
> 
> so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong?  And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.
> 
> Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made....  if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes...  I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.
> 
> ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
> And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
> As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion  is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die,  and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, I agree and disagree with you.  And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.
> 
> There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable....  Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen....  today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.
> 
> Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching.  And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.
> 
> However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree.  Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...
> 
> I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....
Click to expand...

I have to say nothing but awesome and enjoyable debate from you care4all. Good points. 

Now I must say, I have never brought up religion or gods commandments and you seem to think that that is where I'm coming from. So I don't believe that people are not right with god for using birth control, or that that was ever an issue (I guess that use to be a catholic thing). Or that be fruitful and multiply is an ultimate commandment, and the withdrawal method of birth control is wrong (been used for thousands of years). Nor do i think it pertains to this debate. I think you think I'm coming from a more naturalistic philosophy perspective, but I'm not... Id say it's more from a kantian perspective and what's good for the goose, is good for the gaggle in a sense. Life should be protected for everyone, you have a right to it. No one, government or mother should be allowed to take that from you, wether your capable or not of understating the consequences of those choosing for you. Otherwise the only difference between third and second trimester, or a 6th month old is time hallmarks chosen by people very recently... And I guess the ability of the lungs to exchange gases. It is still undeniably human life, and should be protected. The mothers financial and social status should not be taken into consideration when talking about human life.  

And I must say I agree that I am against forcing people into medical situations, eg the new California vaccination law, I'm pro vaccine but I'm sorry you can't force people to take it. But im sorry but ultrasound is not invasive at all, unless you want to say X-rays are invasive. And I think abortion is sold as birth control, accidents happen I understand that more than anyone, but that's all abortion really is, birth control after life is formed. Life that has rights


----------



## BlueGin

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says nothing of the sort.  And "well of souls"?  What in the blue bloody hell are you driveling about?
Click to expand...


It was in a Demi Moore movie. The Seven Signs


----------



## koshergrl

BlueGin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says nothing of the sort.  And "well of souls"?  What in the blue bloody hell are you driveling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was in a Demi Moore movie. The Seven Signs
Click to expand...

Wth lolol I swear....


----------



## BlueGin

koshergrl said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says nothing of the sort.  And "well of souls"?  What in the blue bloody hell are you driveling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was in a Demi Moore movie. The Seven Signs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wth lolol I swear....
Click to expand...


Highlander... Seven Signs... Jon Stewart.

Libs watch a lot of TV apparently


----------



## koshergrl

BlueGin said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says nothing of the sort.  And "well of souls"?  What in the blue bloody hell are you driveling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was in a Demi Moore movie. The Seven Signs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wth lolol I swear....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Highlander... Seven Signs... Jon Stewart.
> 
> Libs watch a lot of TV apparently
Click to expand...

Instead of reading.


----------



## Dragonlady

The Well of Souls is in Jerusalem under the Temple Mount.  Some of us do more reading than you can imagine.


----------



## koshergrl

Oh Indiana Jones. Got it.


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> The baby killers continue to ignore the fact that this isn't a discussion of whether or not babykilling is cool. The issue here is did the doc break the law when she altered procedures to accommodate harvest of dead babies. And she did. At least, she said she did. In great and charming detail. She put women in danger to perform illegal procedures for money. That is, of course, the textbook definition of PP. Killing babies and abusing women for money. Awesome.


Apparently not. The women having abortions donated the body parts. They made no profit nor did PP. No laws were broken.


----------



## HenryBHough

JoeB131 said:


> [
> Given your personality, I suspect you know more about hookers than I do.



Point is that we already know what you are and all we're haggling is price.


----------



## koshergrl

Faun said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The baby killers continue to ignore the fact that this isn't a discussion of whether or not babykilling is cool. The issue here is did the doc break the law when she altered procedures to accommodate harvest of dead babies. And she did. At least, she said she did. In great and charming detail. She put women in danger to perform illegal procedures for money. That is, of course, the textbook definition of PP. Killing babies and abusing women for money. Awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently not. The women having abortions donated the body parts. They made no profit nor did PP. No laws were broken.
Click to expand...

Not according to the doc. Take it up with her, she's the one who described the crimes, after all.


----------



## Care4all

Jroc said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we haven't ever determined when life begins, we've made laws around it but haven't come up with a definition. So if they are able to do studies on the organs of a fetus like livers, and nodes of the heart, is that fetus not life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life begins... at the beginning I suppose?
> 
> So from the moment the egg attaches to the uterus, and pregnancy takes place, there is a bun in the oven.  (yes, I understand that without conception, pregnancy could not even take place, but a lot of fertilized eggs do not impregnate women, for natural causes....so to me life begins when the bun is in the oven, when a woman becomes pregnant with the fertilized egg being attached to the mother, successfully)
> 
> It is life, but it is not a life that can survive on it's own, it is a life that depends on its host, to survive and is not a viable life where the State should have interest in knowing what is of the citizen's private matters........ is what the supreme court decision said.   So when the growing fetus, becomes viable, is when it can survive being birthed and live on its own, without the mother....with medical machines like incubators etc are fine...  Up until that point, The SC said the State Governments, should have no interest in this matter and should allow its citizens this personal privacy.
> 
> Adam was formed, and then he had life when God BREATHED life in to him...could mean Adam existed when being formed by God, but Adam did NOT have "life" until he took his first breath and generally speaking, this is when society has accepted when life begins, in a legal sense....a birth certificate was not given for a newborn unless they took their first breath, for the longest of times....I am not certain if it is still this way today? ...but if the baby did not take it's first breath, then it was a Stillborn child... a child delivered dead.
> 
> The issue is not what is right or wrong according to the law or to morality or to our Religions, and I don't think the SC, when they made this decision was saying for everyone to now run off and get pregnant so they can get an abortion....just that we, as human beings, and as citizens, have the right to handle our own private issues, without the State government coming in and trying to take that very personal private matter, away from us and in to their hands, the hands of the government, until the State government has an interest in the matter....the SC said that is when the baby can live without the use of the mother's body, then the State can come in and make decisions on behalf of the living baby or more defined, the capable of living outside of the womb, baby....a viable fetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?
> 
> You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.
> 
> As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....
> 
> so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong?  And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.
> 
> Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made....  if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes...  I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.
> 
> ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
> And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
> As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion  is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die,  and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, I agree and disagree with you.  And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.
> 
> There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable....  Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen....  today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.
> 
> Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching.  And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.
> 
> However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree.  Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...
> 
> I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening"  You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?
Click to expand...

your ignorance on this topic explains your comments....educate yourself...
Abortion in American History - The Atlantic

what's a 'highlander'?


----------



## koshergrl

Care4all said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?
> 
> You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability
> 
> 
> 
> As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.
> 
> As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....
> 
> so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong?  And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.
> 
> Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made....  if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes...  I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.
> 
> ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
> And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
> As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion  is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die,  and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, I agree and disagree with you.  And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.
> 
> There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable....  Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen....  today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.
> 
> Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching.  And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.
> 
> However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree.  Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...
> 
> I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening"  You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your ignorance on this topic explains your comments....educate yourself...
> Abortion in American History - The Atlantic
> 
> what's a 'highlander'?
Click to expand...

What on earth does the history of abortion have to do with what he said...or this thread? Speak to the issue....racketeering, murder, exploitation...the bloody history your proud of is irrelevant.


----------



## Care4all

koshergrl said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.
> 
> As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....
> 
> so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong?  And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.
> 
> Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made....  if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes...  I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.
> 
> ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.
> 
> 
> 
> See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
> And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
> As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion  is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die,  and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, I agree and disagree with you.  And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.
> 
> There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable....  Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen....  today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.
> 
> Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching.  And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.
> 
> However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree.  Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...
> 
> I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening"  You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your ignorance on this topic explains your comments....educate yourself...
> Abortion in American History - The Atlantic
> 
> what's a 'highlander'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What on earth does the history of abortion have to do with what he said...or this thread? Speak to the issue....racketeering, murder, exploitation...the bloody history your proud of is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

it has to do with the term ''quickening'' which he claims never existed, or claims there is no such thing, and its meaning


----------



## koshergrl

Care4all said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
> And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
> As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion  is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die,  and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize
> 
> 
> 
> See, I agree and disagree with you.  And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.
> 
> There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable....  Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen....  today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.
> 
> Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching.  And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.
> 
> However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree.  Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...
> 
> I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening"  You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your ignorance on this topic explains your comments....educate yourself...
> Abortion in American History - The Atlantic
> 
> what's a 'highlander'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What on earth does the history of abortion have to do with what he said...or this thread? Speak to the issue....racketeering, murder, exploitation...the bloody history your proud of is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it has to do with the term ''quickening'' which he claims never existed, or claims there is no such thing, and its meaning
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the topic.


----------



## Darkwind

Dragonlady said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're sick. They need our prayers but they also need to be called out and stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU need to be called out and stopped.  If you don't believe in abortion, don't have an abortion.  But you have no right to tell other women that they must have a child they cannot afford.  That is between the woman, her doctor, and her God.
Click to expand...

Yet you tell men they must pay for children THEY cannot afford...You really need to sit down and work on your cognitive dissidence.


----------



## A Perez

SassyIrishLass said:


> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*


False title.


----------



## skookerasbil

These planned parenthood people.......Id pay to be there at their deathbeds wehn they are ready to check out!!! What a hoot!!! Just stand their with a big old smile and say, "Its gonna be awesome s0n!!!"


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening" You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?



there is no God. 
There are no souls. 

The difference between advanced countries and poor ones is that we DO limit our family sizes. 

Now, here's the thing. Having 10 kids might have made sense in an era when the infant mortality rate was something like 50%, and you had a very low chance of making it to adulthood.  and sadly, that describes most of the human race all the way up until the 20th century, before we eliminated Polio and Smallpox and Measles and made food production a lot more reliable. 

Today, it really doesn't.  

Is abortion the ideal method of birth control?  Not really.  But is a method used when others are unavailable.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> What on earth does the history of abortion have to do with what he said...or this thread? Speak to the issue....racketeering, murder, exploitation...the bloody history your proud of is irrelevant.



Are you some kind of retard where you think repeating the same thing over and over again makes you a point?


----------



## koshergrl

JoeB131 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth does the history of abortion have to do with what he said...or this thread? Speak to the issue....racketeering, murder, exploitation...the bloody history your proud of is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you some kind of retard where you think repeating the same thing over and over again makes you a point?
Click to expand...

It's what the thread is about. This isn't a 'killing babies is cool' thread. It's a thread about crimes Pp is committing per herr doktor.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> It's what the thread is about. This isn't a 'killing babies is cool' thread. It's a thread about crimes Pp is committing per herr doktor.



Except the tape was doctored and she clearly stated that PP doesn't sell tissue samples. 

But that's okay. You keep going with the doctored tape because it validates your crazy world view. The one where apparently abortion is out there so we all have lots of porn or something.


----------



## Lakhota

*Planned Parenthood President responds to video hoax.*


----------



## Jroc

Care4all said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> finally an actual consversation on this matter, thank you! And I would say to you that the argument for viability breaks down in two ways. One being that viability is quickly changing, and we Are getting better and better at allowing pre-mature births to survive. So the age of viability is getting younger and younger. Secondly the definition viability can reach much broader than what your thinking. A newborn is not viable without a host, it still needs the nutrition and antibodies and fluids, not to mention security provided by that host...wether or not it's through an umbilical cord in the womb, or a teat outside of the womb. So what is viability? Is it when the baby is able to breath on it's own. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what you mean by viability. But then viability becomes a question of when lungs are able to respirate and exchange gases with air. A fetus still exchanges gases, even when lungs are not developed, it's just done through the mothers blood stream, the gas exchange is happening on it's own though. A fetus in the second trimester is still able to breath air and exchange gases, but not a level that could sustain it without help. Some babies that come to turn and a birthed are not able exchange gases on their own. So does that baby lose it's viability?
> 
> You already admit that yes this is life, but when does it get protection as life? There are plenty among us who are not viable on their own, see terry chaivo, does that mean we have the power to terminate. Based on our ever changing and multiple definitions of viability? We are coming clothes to inventing an artificial womb, and growing fetuses outside if the womb, when that happens does abortion become illegal bc it would no longer need a host? So what is your current and I hope long standing definition of viability
> 
> 
> 
> As you said, our medical abilities to save a premature child's life have improved greatly over the decades, with more improvements to come, bringing the old thought of 26-28 weeks of gestation being the age where fetuses can survive, is down to 24 week preemies surviving outside of the womb and maybe even a 22-23 week baby has survived as well, if memory serves me....and survival rates will improve in time.
> 
> As far as other life support, from machines or bottles, or intravenously, that is support outside of the mother being a host....and breast feeding, although good for babies to build up antibodies, it is not necessary for the child to survive...if the mother died in child birth as an example, or the mother was on Chemo to treat a cancer she developed while pregnant.....
> 
> so whatever the point of viability may be, and this can change over the decades with improvements, the State can get involved with a citizen's private matter, at this point, is my understanding of the SC ruling, but I could be wrong?  And it does not mean the State HAS TO intervene, just that they can if they find the interest to do so.
> 
> Terri Schiavo could have survived for decades longer...and I am torn over that issue and always have been and this thread will be hijacked in to another topic if I go in to how I felt about it, in any kind of depth...it's a hot issue, even until this day....but for the short of it, I don't believe terri ever gave permission to have the next of kin take her off life support, so I am upset with the decision her husband made....  if this was truly Terri's will and she had a DNR in place, then her husband was following her wishes...  I felt he had moved on with his life with a new family and possibly was not doing her will....but this is all speculation on my part and only God knows for sure.
> 
> ON THE OTHER HAND, it was HIS decision to make as next of kin and NOT the government's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See this is how conversation and debate is supposed to be. Thank you for your reply.
> And scotus isn't really the place we should be receiving our morals I would argue. Especially since you are bringing up states rights. Look at 2 years ago with scotus striking down DOMA, claiming it should be up to the states... And now they went against that ruling with their recent gay marriage rulings saying states can't have a say in marriage. Personally I'm all for gay marriage, I'm also for polygamy. What I'm not for is the fed deciding what love is and who and how you can love them, and bribing us with out own tax dollars. The goverment has no place in marriage, after all we have the freedom of religion so if my religion says a can marry the person or people I want, I should be able to do so. As long as my religion isn't calling for violence. But that's all a different topic.
> As for abortion, Our laws are being handed down from people speculating about viability and made up trimesters. Nothing about wether or not it's life and if it's protected life (right to life, liberty, and poh). And what flipped me on abortion  is when I stole a goose egg and threw it at a friends car when I was younger, when it broke a half formed chick fell out of the egg, and I watched it die,  and I felt awful about it despite my hate for geese. And over time I couldn't help but think if instead of doing abortions from within, what of we could take the fetus out magically and do the dirty work on the outside. Even humanely, imagine killing a fetus on the outside knowing it's a human, I don't see how that does not make you want to vomit, and think it's absolutely wrong. Which is why many pro-choice folks are against ultrasounds before abortion, bc I believe it's 90% of women who see it decide not to have the abortion. I think all we're doing is dehumanizing what we can't see in the name of convenience and prosperity for the mother and society as a whole. Outside of mentally unstable I don't know a mother who has ever regretted their children, maybe timing, but not the child itself. And the whole viability debate, sadly necessary and even more sad not had enough, is just another way for us to dehumanize and rationalize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, I agree and disagree with you.  And yes, it is the pro choice side rationalizing it, which is not always bad, when one is trying to develop laws that covers everyone.
> 
> There were no laws against abortion when we first populated America.....we had Common law and it continued for about a half century or more after we were first born as a Nation....and from what I understand, government left abortions up to the woman, until the baby was kicking, until what is called 'quickening', and after that it was against the law and punishable....  Husband and wives who did not want... due to not being able to afford... their 6th or 7th or 12th child without hurting the children they already had... chances in life, at the time took an 'old wives' mixture of drugs, to cause the pregnancy to end....and government, was NOT involved in their decisions...they, and the very religious may not have liked it, and even their church may not have liked it and spoke against it, but it did happen....  today we have various means of birth control to keep families from having 12 children or more children than a family can manage or handle financially without being a burden on society....but the sin of not wanting to 'produce and multiply' as God initially commanded of us, is being committed equally by the woman on birth control, as the woman having an abortion...one is not necessarily 'better' than the other....both are stopping the 'produce and multiply' command from God...and birth control is 'premeditated' long in advance.
> 
> Your example of throwing the goose egg and watching the chick inside die, is heart wrenching.  And we can only hope, for the sake of reality taking hold, (not for the sake of the little chick inside the egg though), that others may have a similar experience....it is a rude awakening.
> 
> However, many do not take this stance or see this view that you were able to experience, and many that do not have a religious stance, or their religious stance is that it is up to them, their spouse, and their Rabbi and or Pastor to make the decision on abortion in the early stages and not one for the government to make for them....and I tend to agree.  Only the person faced with the situation of being pregnant should make this decision for themselves, with the guidance they seek from family and friends and the father and Pastors, Priests, or Rabbi's etc and hopefully they will choose to mother their child to be...
> 
> I don't think pro choicers are against ultra sounds for the reason you state....they are against it because it is a medical procedure that is not necessary and the State should NOT have the ability to force a person to have a medical procedure that is not necessary...when you open the door to this, then it is a slippery slope....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening"  You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your ignorance on this topic explains your comments....educate yourself...
> Abortion in American History - The Atlantic
> 
> what's a 'highlander'?
Click to expand...



You're stuck in the 19th century girl. We are in the 21st century "quickening"


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a time when we were barbarians. There is no such thing as a "quickening" You've been watching too much Highlander . Babies are given a Soul from G-d upon conception. We are not China. We don't limit the number of children we can have..What's wrong with you people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is no God.
> There are no souls.
> 
> The difference between advanced countries and poor ones is that we DO limit our family sizes.
> 
> Now, here's the thing. Having 10 kids might have made sense in an era when the infant mortality rate was something like 50%, and you had a very low chance of making it to adulthood.  and sadly, that describes most of the human race all the way up until the 20th century, before we eliminated Polio and Smallpox and Measles and made food production a lot more reliable.
> 
> Today, it really doesn't.
> 
> Is abortion the ideal method of birth control?  Not really.  But is a method used when others are unavailable.
Click to expand...


You need those kids to support the welfare state you love so much..And when your miserable ass is on your death bed you wont be railing against G-d


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> You need those kids to support the welfare state you love so much..And when your miserable ass is on your death bed you wont be railing against G-d



Yeah, I probably will. There is no God. I figured that out when my mom was on her deathbed and all the prayers and fake lotions from Saint's tombs and rosaries didn't save her.  

But to the point.  We don't need to have an irresponsible birth rate to support a welfare state. 

What we actually need to do is stop shipping all our jobs to India and China and Mexico. 

With the Labor Participation Rate at record lows, the problem is not that we don't have enough people.   We have plenty, and we can import more if we really need them.  

The bigger point is that the planet can't sustain this level of population growth.  This was the point I was trying to get across to you but you were too busy seeing red to process.


----------



## Rexx Taylor

SassyIrishLass said:


> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*


i am surprised that the far left hasn't used the excuse "But It's For The Children".


----------



## koshergrl

Rexx Taylor said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> i am surprised that the far left hasn't used the excuse "But It's For The Children".
Click to expand...

Oh they have. These threads are strewn with "you don't really care about kids or you'd be okay with chopping them up" craziness.


----------



## koshergrl

Lakhota said:


> *Planned Parenthood President responds to video hoax.*


Oh well then...if the president of pp says they aren't doing anything wrong, that's the end of it! Whew no investigation needed, because organizations engaged in multi million racketeering organizations are always trustworthy! Gads this is idiotic even for babykiller morons.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need those kids to support the welfare state you love so much..And when your miserable ass is on your death bed you wont be railing against G-d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I probably will. There is no God. I figured that out when my mom was on her deathbed and all the prayers and fake lotions from Saint's tombs and rosaries didn't save her.
> 
> But to the point.  We don't need to have an irresponsible birth rate to support a welfare state.
> 
> What we actually need to do is stop shipping all our jobs to India and China and Mexico.
> 
> With the Labor Participation Rate at record lows, the problem is not that we don't have enough people.   We have plenty, and we can import more if we really need them.
> 
> The bigger point is that the planet can't sustain this level of population growth.  This was the point I was trying to get across to you but you were too busy seeing red to process.
Click to expand...

Didn't know God was in the business saving people. Sorry you lost your mom


----------



## Darkwind

Lakhota said:


> *Planned Parenthood President responds to video hoax.*


It will take more than that to refute this undercover investigation.....As long as she feeds off of the prepackaged blood from the Red Cross until this is straightened out, I don't care what she says.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Didn't know God was in the business saving people. Sorry you lost your mom



God is in the business of "Not existing anywhere but the imaginations of superstitious assholes who deserve to be mocked".


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't know God was in the business saving people. Sorry you lost your mom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is in the business of "Not existing anywhere but the imaginations of superstitious assholes who deserve to be mocked".
Click to expand...

To each his own. Thank you first amendment. And the people who believed god gave us those unalienable rights


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> To each his own. Thank you first amendment. And the people who believed god gave us those unalienable rights



They also beleived witches were a real thing, but that doesn't mean we have to.


----------



## BlueGin

Rexx Taylor said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> i am surprised that the far left hasn't used the excuse "But It's For The Children".
Click to expand...


They have


----------



## BlueGin

koshergrl said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood President responds to video hoax.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well then...if the president of pp says they aren't doing anything wrong, that's the end of it! Whew no investigation needed, because organizations engaged in multi million racketeering organizations are always trustworthy! Gads this is idiotic even for babykiller morons.
Click to expand...


JoeB requires more proof then that... Just ask him.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> JoeB requires more proof then that... Just ask him.



NOpe, this i just don't care about.  I really don't care what PP does with its medical waste.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> To each his own. Thank you first amendment. And the people who believed god gave us those unalienable rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They also beleived witches were a real thing, but that doesn't mean we have to.
Click to expand...

Nobody said you did, in fact I said the opposite. Egyptians believed in gods, and built the pyramids. Newton, Einstein believed in god, doesn't mean they're dumb people that deserve to be mocked. Keep on generalizing and mock the people who don't agree with you, after all you can't be wrong so they must be dumb. I'm sure no one else in history hasn't thought that way


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB requires more proof then that... Just ask him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe, this i just don't care about.  I really don't care what PP does with its medical waste.
Click to expand...

Is a human in a vegetative state medical waste?


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Nobody said you did, in fact I said the opposite. Egyptians believed in gods, and built the pyramids. Newton, Einstein believed in god, doesn't mean they're dumb people that deserve to be mocked. Keep on generalizing and mock the people who don't agree with you, after all you can't be wrong so they must be dumb. I'm sure no one else in history hasn't thought that way



Einstein was an atheist, and, yes, religious assholes deserved to be mocked at every opportunity.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Is a human in a vegetative state medical waste?



are you trying to sound smart, because you are failing miserably.


----------



## BlueGin

sakinago said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB requires more proof then that... Just ask him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe, this i just don't care about.  I really don't care what PP does with its medical waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is a human in a vegetative state medical waste?
Click to expand...


Shhhh... He is trying to be controversial.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB requires more proof then that... Just ask him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe, this i just don't care about.  I really don't care what PP does with its medical waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is a human in a vegetative state medical waste?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shhhh... He is trying to be controversial.
Click to expand...


Naw, just putting your hypocrisy in the proper context. 

When you guys start giving a crap about real poor kids, just the ones in this country and not around the world, then I will take your mewling about what happens to the medical waste seriously.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said you did, in fact I said the opposite. Egyptians believed in gods, and built the pyramids. Newton, Einstein believed in god, doesn't mean they're dumb people that deserve to be mocked. Keep on generalizing and mock the people who don't agree with you, after all you can't be wrong so they must be dumb. I'm sure no one else in history hasn't thought that way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Einstein was an atheist, and, yes, religious assholes deserved to be mocked at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

Einstein was not an atheist, letters of his that we're recently auctioned off proved that. It was only ever speculated, but I guess if it fits your view just run with it, w out verifying.


----------



## JoeB131

Did Albert Einstein Believe in God or Not 

_How_ he believed in God. The letters didn’t show that Einstein _did_ believe in God, but rather _how_ he believed in God.

(That’s a textbook example of taking something out of context to suit your needs.)

So what _did_ Einstein have to say in his letters about God?

*“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one,”* he wrote to a man who corresponded with him on the subject twice in the 1940s. “*You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist.* … I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”

So… if Einstein lived today, he’d say he’s not a “New Atheist.” He wouldn’t be trying to convince you to shed your faith. Instead, he’d follow the *Neil deGrasse Tyson*approach to religion, which is to say he’d stay away from labels… but even he’d admit the idea of a Christian God who listens to your prayers and watches over your life is just flat-out ridiculous.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is a human in a vegetative state medical waste?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you trying to sound smart, because you are failing miserably.
Click to expand...

Makeup a


sakinago said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB requires more proof then that... Just ask him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOpe, this i just don't care about.  I really don't care what PP does with its medical waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is a human in a vegetative state medical waste?
Click to expand...

its a common conversation in medical ethics of what do we classify a vegetative state as. But I'll take a different approach recently taken. Are you fine with aborting a fetus at 25 weeks?


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> its a common conversation in medical ethics of what do we classify a vegetative state as. But I'll take a different approach recently taken. Are you fine with aborting a fetus at 25 weeks?



I think it would depend on the circumstances.  

If the fetus had something like brittle bone syndrome or spina-bifida or Down Syndrome, then I'd have no problem with an abortion at that point. If the pregnancy was a serious threat tot he mother and there was no way to save the fetus, I'd have no problem. 

If she just caught her husband screwing the Nanny and she didn't want to have a kid with him, I'd have more of a problem with it, but I don't think that actually happens that often.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> Did Albert Einstein Believe in God or Not
> 
> _How_ he believed in God. The letters didn’t show that Einstein _did_ believe in God, but rather _how_ he believed in God.
> 
> (That’s a textbook example of taking something out of context to suit your needs.)
> 
> So what _did_ Einstein have to say in his letters about God?
> 
> *“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one,”* he wrote to a man who corresponded with him on the subject twice in the 1940s. “*You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist.* … I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
> 
> So… if Einstein lived today, he’d say he’s not a “New Atheist.” He wouldn’t be trying to convince you to shed your faith. Instead, he’d follow the *Neil deGrasse Tyson*approach to religion, which is to say he’d stay away from labels… but even he’d admit the idea of a Christian God who listens to your prayers and watches over your life is just flat-out ridiculous.


You have no clue what I believe about god. Never gave one word to that, and by your admission Einstein was agnostic, I hope you know what that word means. I think it's foolish to dismiss a whole group of people as stupid because of your personal bias.  People who have done a lot of good that seems to go un-noticed, by people who want to blame all the problems of the world on religion.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> its a common conversation in medical ethics of what do we classify a vegetative state as. But I'll take a different approach recently taken. Are you fine with aborting a fetus at 25 weeks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it would depend on the circumstances.
> 
> If the fetus had something like brittle bone syndrome or spina-bifida or Down Syndrome, then I'd have no problem with an abortion at that point. If the pregnancy was a serious threat tot he mother and there was no way to save the fetus, I'd have no problem.
> 
> If she just caught her husband screwing the Nanny and she didn't want to have a kid with him, I'd have more of a problem with it, but I don't think that actually happens that often.
Click to expand...

Well my next question is what's the difference at 18 weeks, 16 weeks,  when does it start becoming wrong to do? And whose defining that, our lawmakers?


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need those kids to support the welfare state you love so much..And when your miserable ass is on your death bed you wont be railing against G-d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I probably will. There is no God. I figured that out when my mom was on her deathbed and all the prayers and fake lotions from Saint's tombs and rosaries didn't save her.
> 
> But to the point.  We don't need to have an irresponsible birth rate to support a welfare state.
> 
> What we actually need to do is stop shipping all our jobs to India and China and Mexico.
> 
> With the Labor Participation Rate at record lows, the problem is not that we don't have enough people.   We have plenty, and we can import more if we really need them.
> 
> The bigger point is that the planet can't sustain this level of population growth.  This was the point I was trying to get across to you but you were too busy seeing red to process.
Click to expand...


Funny you support killing American babies but you have no problem with shipping in poor uneducated people from other countries


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need those kids to support the welfare state you love so much..And when your miserable ass is on your death bed you wont be railing against G-d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I probably will. There is no God. *I figured that out when my mom was on her deathbed and all the prayers and fake lotions from Saint's tombs and rosaries didn't save her.  *
> 
> But to the point.  We don't need to have an irresponsible birth rate to support a welfare state.
> 
> What we actually need to do is stop shipping all our jobs to India and China and Mexico.
> 
> With the Labor Participation Rate at record lows, the problem is not that we don't have enough people.   We have plenty, and we can import more if we really need them.
> 
> The bigger point is that the planet can't sustain this level of population growth.  This was the point I was trying to get across to you but you were too busy seeing red to process.
Click to expand...



People die when it is their time,If you're bitter because of that, then that's on you


----------



## Dragonlady

koshergrl said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth does the history of abortion have to do with what he said...or this thread? Speak to the issue....racketeering, murder, exploitation...the bloody history your proud of is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you some kind of retard where you think repeating the same thing over and over again makes you a point?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's what the thread is about. This isn't a 'killing babies is cool' thread. It's a thread about crimes Pp is committing per herr doktor.
Click to expand...


No, it's about the lies conservatives will tell to try to shut down abortion providers. Especially safe abortion providers like PP. 

Anti-abortion hate groups will stop at nothing to ensure that a woman must risk her life to obtain an abortion. They will bomb, kill, lie, harass and intimidate and then pretend they're just being moral. 

KG is a prime example of one of these so-called Christians.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragonlady said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth does the history of abortion have to do with what he said...or this thread? Speak to the issue....racketeering, murder, exploitation...the bloody history your proud of is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you some kind of retard where you think repeating the same thing over and over again makes you a point?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's what the thread is about. This isn't a 'killing babies is cool' thread. It's a thread about crimes Pp is committing per herr doktor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's about the lies conservatives will tell to try to shut down abortion providers. Especially safe abortion providers like PP.
> 
> Anti-abortion hate groups will stop at nothing to ensure that a woman must risk her life to obtain an abortion. They will bomb, kill, lie, harass and intimidate and then pretend they're just being moral.
> 
> KG is a prime example of one of these so-called Christians.
Click to expand...

Dragonlady is okay with criminal abuse and exploitation of pregnant women. She's okay with raping them using ultrasound if it results in saleable baby pieces.


----------



## sakinago

Dragonlady said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth does the history of abortion have to do with what he said...or this thread? Speak to the issue....racketeering, murder, exploitation...the bloody history your proud of is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you some kind of retard where you think repeating the same thing over and over again makes you a point?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's what the thread is about. This isn't a 'killing babies is cool' thread. It's a thread about crimes Pp is committing per herr doktor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's about the lies conservatives will tell to try to shut down abortion providers. Especially safe abortion providers like PP.
> 
> Anti-abortion hate groups will stop at nothing to ensure that a woman must risk her life to obtain an abortion. They will bomb, kill, lie, harass and intimidate and then pretend they're just being moral.
> 
> KG is a prime example of one of these so-called Christians.
Click to expand...

Hey we need to thin the herd out, we got too much global warming , too few resources. Less of them, more for me. 

KG has a point, it's ok to ultrasound to flip the baby in a breach position when your harvesting parts then crush the head. But not ok when a women is in decision process of abortion


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> You have no clue what I believe about god. Never gave one word to that, and by your admission Einstein was agnostic, I hope you know what that word means. I think it's foolish to dismiss a whole group of people as stupid because of your personal bias. People who have done a lot of good that seems to go un-noticed, by people who want to blame all the problems of the world on religion.



I don't think we ever discussed what you believe.  I'm reasonably sure I don't care.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Well my next question is what's the difference at 18 weeks, 16 weeks, when does it start becoming wrong to do? And whose defining that, our lawmakers?



I think that call should be made by the woman and her doctor. Period.  



Jroc said:


> Funny you support killing American babies but you have no problem with shipping in poor uneducated people from other countries



Fetuses still aren't babies, and no one is ever going to make a woman have a baby she doesn't want to have.  Time for people like you to get real.  

I'm for SELECTIVELY allowing immigration.  What do you bring to the table.  



Jroc said:


> People die when it is their time,If you're bitter because of that, then that's on you



People die when it's their time.  There is no God.  For which I am grateful, because I read the Bible and realize Yahweh was a true cocksucker as far as dieties go.  The world would have been much better off if Zeus were the Imaginary Sky Fairy of choice.  He actually sounded like a lot of fun.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well my next question is what's the difference at 18 weeks, 16 weeks, when does it start becoming wrong to do? And whose defining that, our lawmakers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that call should be made by the woman and her doctor. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you support killing American babies but you have no problem with shipping in poor uneducated people from other countries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fetuses still aren't babies, and no one is ever going to make a woman have a baby she doesn't want to have.  Time for people like you to get real.
> 
> I'm for SELECTIVELY allowing immigration.  What do you bring to the table.
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> People die when it is their time,If you're bitter because of that, then that's on you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People die when it's their time.  There is no God.  For which I am grateful, because I read the Bible and realize Yahweh was a true cocksucker as far as dieties go.  The world would have been much better off if Zeus were the Imaginary Sky Fairy of choice.  He actually sounded like a lot of fun.
Click to expand...

You think the call should be made between her and her doctor...except past the third trimester. Which the term trimester isn't any thing real or biologically significant, something we made up. And who says a fetus isn't a baby, do you know what fetus in Latin means? Don't know who is saying it's not a baby, what else is it. It's not a shoe in there


----------



## Dragonlady

Jroc said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need those kids to support the welfare state you love so much..And when your miserable ass is on your death bed you wont be railing against G-d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I probably will. There is no God. I figured that out when my mom was on her deathbed and all the prayers and fake lotions from Saint's tombs and rosaries didn't save her.
> 
> But to the point.  We don't need to have an irresponsible birth rate to support a welfare state.
> 
> What we actually need to do is stop shipping all our jobs to India and China and Mexico.
> 
> With the Labor Participation Rate at record lows, the problem is not that we don't have enough people.   We have plenty, and we can import more if we really need them.
> 
> The bigger point is that the planet can't sustain this level of population growth.  This was the point I was trying to get across to you but you were too busy seeing red to process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny you support killing American babies but you have no problem with shipping in poor uneducated people from other countries
Click to expand...


People are people regardless of where they are from. Joe said nothing about encouraging poor uneducated people to emigrate. He simply said there is no need to increase the earth's population. If more people are needed here, there's always immigration. 

Or are you worried that these immigrants won't be white folks?


----------



## sakinago

Dragonlady said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need those kids to support the welfare state you love so much..And when your miserable ass is on your death bed you wont be railing against G-d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I probably will. There is no God. I figured that out when my mom was on her deathbed and all the prayers and fake lotions from Saint's tombs and rosaries didn't save her.
> 
> But to the point.  We don't need to have an irresponsible birth rate to support a welfare state.
> 
> What we actually need to do is stop shipping all our jobs to India and China and Mexico.
> 
> With the Labor Participation Rate at record lows, the problem is not that we don't have enough people.   We have plenty, and we can import more if we really need them.
> 
> The bigger point is that the planet can't sustain this level of population growth.  This was the point I was trying to get across to you but you were too busy seeing red to process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny you support killing American babies but you have no problem with shipping in poor uneducated people from other countries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are people regardless of where they are from. Joe said nothing about encouraging poor uneducated people to emigrate. He simply said there is no need to increase the earth's population. If more people are needed here, there's always immigration.
> 
> Or are you worried that these immigrants won't be white folks?
Click to expand...

What about people are people no matter how old? Or as Dr Seuss said a person is a person no matter how small. But I guess if you can't see them they must not exist. Object permanence


----------



## Jroc

Dragonlady said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth does the history of abortion have to do with what he said...or this thread? Speak to the issue....racketeering, murder, exploitation...the bloody history your proud of is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you some kind of retard where you think repeating the same thing over and over again makes you a point?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's what the thread is about. This isn't a 'killing babies is cool' thread. It's a thread about crimes Pp is committing per herr doktor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's about the lies conservatives will tell to try to shut down abortion providers. Especially safe abortion providers like PP.
> 
> Anti-abortion hate groups will stop at nothing to ensure that a woman must risk her life to obtain an abortion. *They will bomb, kill, lie, harass and intimidate and then pretend they're just being moral. *
> 
> KG is a prime example of one of these so-called Christians.
Click to expand...



Try posting when you are coherent and can think for yourself.


----------



## Jroc

Dragonlady said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need those kids to support the welfare state you love so much..And when your miserable ass is on your death bed you wont be railing against G-d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I probably will. There is no God. I figured that out when my mom was on her deathbed and all the prayers and fake lotions from Saint's tombs and rosaries didn't save her.
> 
> But to the point.  We don't need to have an irresponsible birth rate to support a welfare state.
> 
> What we actually need to do is stop shipping all our jobs to India and China and Mexico.
> 
> With the Labor Participation Rate at record lows, the problem is not that we don't have enough people.   We have plenty, and we can import more if we really need them.
> 
> The bigger point is that the planet can't sustain this level of population growth.  This was the point I was trying to get across to you but you were too busy seeing red to process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny you support killing American babies but you have no problem with shipping in poor uneducated people from other countries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are people regardless of where they are from. Joe said nothing about encouraging poor uneducated people to emigrate. He simply said there is no need to increase the earth's population. If more people are needed here, there's always immigration.
> 
> Or are you worried that these immigrants won't be* white folks*?
Click to expand...


These people are poor and uneducated we are not citizens of the world. Save American babies let the south Americans and Mexicans take care of their own 







BlackGenocide.org Abortion and the Black Community


----------



## Jroc

sakinago said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need those kids to support the welfare state you love so much..And when your miserable ass is on your death bed you wont be railing against G-d
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I probably will. There is no God. I figured that out when my mom was on her deathbed and all the prayers and fake lotions from Saint's tombs and rosaries didn't save her.
> 
> But to the point.  We don't need to have an irresponsible birth rate to support a welfare state.
> 
> What we actually need to do is stop shipping all our jobs to India and China and Mexico.
> 
> With the Labor Participation Rate at record lows, the problem is not that we don't have enough people.   We have plenty, and we can import more if we really need them.
> 
> The bigger point is that the planet can't sustain this level of population growth.  This was the point I was trying to get across to you but you were too busy seeing red to process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny you support killing American babies but you have no problem with shipping in poor uneducated people from other countries
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People are people regardless of where they are from. Joe said nothing about encouraging poor uneducated people to emigrate. He simply said there is no need to increase the earth's population. If more people are needed here, there's always immigration.
> 
> Or are you worried that these immigrants won't be white folks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about people are people no matter how old? Or as Dr Seuss said a person is a person no matter how small. But I guess if you can't see them they must not exist. Object permanence
Click to expand...


You can see them..


----------



## Dragonlady

The point isn't whether or not a fetus may become a person. It's whether the family it will be born into can care for another child. 

It still comes back to 80% of all abortions happen for financial reasons. With no maternity leave, low minimum wages, no job guarantees, low income women are having abortions. 

And others have no right to tell them they must have a child they cannot afford.


----------



## Jroc

Dragonlady said:


> The point isn't whether or not a fetus may become a person. It's whether the family it will be born into can care for another child.
> 
> It still comes back to 80% of all abortions happen for financial reasons. With no maternity leave, low minimum wages, no job guarantees, low income women are having abortions.
> 
> And others have no right to tell them they must have a child they cannot afford.


Then use birth control to prevent the pregnancy, but once she is pregnant let them live give them up for adaption


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> These people are poor and uneducated we are not citizens of the world. Save American babies let the south Americans and Mexicans take care of their own



maybe if we didn't keep African Americans poor, they wouldn't have abortions. 

Oh, wait.  That's not the conservative way.


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> You can see them..



Most abortions aren't performed when a fetus is 17-20 weeks.  When they are, it's because the fetus is deformed.  

Maybe you anti-choice nuts need to have an honest conversation once in a while.


----------



## skookerasbil

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can see them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most abortions aren't performed when a fetus is 17-20 weeks.  When they are, it's because the fetus is deformed.
> 
> Maybe you anti-choice nuts need to have an honest conversation once in a while.
Click to expand...




ghey

s0n......you excell at gheyness..........and shit, see you are really swinging for the fences on racking up that post count total 

you fucking k00k,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## JoeB131

Spambot wishes someone would pay attention to it.


----------



## Dragonlady

Jroc said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point isn't whether or not a fetus may become a person. It's whether the family it will be born into can care for another child.
> 
> It still comes back to 80% of all abortions happen for financial reasons. With no maternity leave, low minimum wages, no job guarantees, low income women are having abortions.
> 
> And others have no right to tell them they must have a child they cannot afford.
> 
> 
> 
> Then use birth control to prevent the pregnancy, but once she is pregnant let them live give them up for adaption
Click to expand...


Half of the women having abortions DID use birth control and got pregnant anyway.  Having the child without paid maternity leave means the low income worker won't have a job by the time the pregnancy is over. Nor will she have the money for prenatal or post natal care.  

Do you not remember the orphanages from the 30's and 40's?  That's where unplanned pregnancies ended up back then.


----------



## JoeB131

Dragonlady said:


> Half of the women having abortions DID use birth control and got pregnant anyway. Having the child without paid maternity leave means the low income worker won't have a job by the time the pregnancy is over. Nor will she have the money for prenatal or post natal care.
> 
> Do you not remember the orphanages from the 30's and 40's? That's where unplanned pregnancies ended up back then.



All good points. 

At the last job I had, the one that permanently cured me of Republicanism, we had a boss who had a simple solution to the maternity leave thing.  He fired female employees when they got pregnant.


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people are poor and uneducated we are not citizens of the world. Save American babies let the south Americans and Mexicans take care of their own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe if we didn't keep African Americans poor, they wouldn't have abortions.
> 
> Oh, wait.  That's not the conservative way.
Click to expand...



You're as backwards boy, the leftist love poor black people. that way  people like Obama can use them divide and conquer. blacks and poor whites for that matter have done far worst under the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and the leftist trash. Back to the topic, we don't slaughter babies because we think they aren't worth shit, because they may be poor, which appears to be the leftist position


----------



## Jroc

Dragonlady said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point isn't whether or not a fetus may become a person. It's whether the family it will be born into can care for another child.
> 
> It still comes back to 80% of all abortions happen for financial reasons. With no maternity leave, low minimum wages, no job guarantees, low income women are having abortions.
> 
> And others have no right to tell them they must have a child they cannot afford.
> 
> 
> 
> Then use birth control to prevent the pregnancy, but once she is pregnant let them live give them up for adaption
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half of the women having abortions DID use birth control and got pregnant anyway.  Having the child without paid maternity leave means the low income worker won't have a job by the time the pregnancy is over. Nor will she have the money for prenatal or post natal care.
> 
> Do you not remember the orphanages from the 30's and 40's?  That's where unplanned pregnancies ended up back then.
Click to expand...



Actually there is nothing wrong with a well run orphanage..Babies don't end up there anyways. There are many people waiting to adapt babies, get it straight


----------



## koshergrl

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can see them..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most abortions aren't performed when a fetus is 17-20 weeks.  When they are, it's because the fetus is deformed.
> 
> Maybe you anti-choice nuts need to have an honest conversation once in a while.
Click to expand...

This thread is about partial birth abortion, which is illegal. Honesty really is the best policy, gosnell acolyte.


----------



## koshergrl

And regarding poor black ppl, remember it's the left who pays them not to work and who pays them to have children
...while taking their money to kill those same children. It's a nice racket.


----------



## BlueGin

Dragonlady said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point isn't whether or not a fetus may become a person. It's whether the family it will be born into can care for another child.
> 
> It still comes back to 80% of all abortions happen for financial reasons. With no maternity leave, low minimum wages, no job guarantees, low income women are having abortions.
> 
> And others have no right to tell them they must have a child they cannot afford.
> 
> 
> 
> Then use birth control to prevent the pregnancy, but once she is pregnant let them live give them up for adaption
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half of the women having abortions DID use birth control and got pregnant anyway.  Having the child without paid maternity leave means the low income worker won't have a job by the time the pregnancy is over. Nor will she have the money for prenatal or post natal care.
> 
> Do you not remember the orphanages from the 30's and 40's?  That's where unplanned pregnancies ended up back then.
Click to expand...


Most low income women are on Medicaid and get prenatal care,free breast pumps, free child care, Lamaze and breast feeding classes.

They also Qualify for extra snap benefits, daycare aid, Chip and WIC.


----------



## evince

prove your claim with facts


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Half of the women having abortions DID use birth control and got pregnant anyway. Having the child without paid maternity leave means the low income worker won't have a job by the time the pregnancy is over. Nor will she have the money for prenatal or post natal care.
> 
> Do you not remember the orphanages from the 30's and 40's? That's where unplanned pregnancies ended up back then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All good points.
> 
> At the last job I had, the one that permanently cured me of Republicanism, we had a boss who had a simple solution to the maternity leave thing.  He fired female employees when they got pregnant.
Click to expand...


Sure he did


----------



## BlueGin

Jroc said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point isn't whether or not a fetus may become a person. It's whether the family it will be born into can care for another child.
> 
> It still comes back to 80% of all abortions happen for financial reasons. With no maternity leave, low minimum wages, no job guarantees, low income women are having abortions.
> 
> And others have no right to tell them they must have a child they cannot afford.
> 
> 
> 
> Then use birth control to prevent the pregnancy, but once she is pregnant let them live give them up for adaption
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half of the women having abortions DID use birth control and got pregnant anyway.  Having the child without paid maternity leave means the low income worker won't have a job by the time the pregnancy is over. Nor will she have the money for prenatal or post natal care.
> 
> Do you not remember the orphanages from the 30's and 40's?  That's where unplanned pregnancies ended up back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is nothing wrong with a well run orphanage..Babies don't end up there anyways. There are many people waiting to adapt babies, get it straight
Click to expand...


Most end up in foster care and are eventually adopted. Lots of good programs for these kids... See Heart Gallery just to name one.


----------



## BlueGin

koshergrl said:


> And regarding poor black ppl, remember it's the left who pays them not to work and who pays them to have children
> ...while taking their money to kill those same children. It's a nice racket.


True


----------



## koshergrl

The procedure described by Nucatola intact dilation and extraction...aka partial-birth abortion, outlawed in 2003.
It's not just about selling parts.


----------



## Dragonlady

BlueGin said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And regarding poor black ppl, remember it's the left who pays them not to work and who pays them to have children
> ...while taking their money to kill those same children. It's a nice racket.
> 
> 
> 
> True
Click to expand...


False. It's conservatives who refuse to raise the minimum wage. It's conservatives who vote against maternity leave, and job guaranties. It's conservatives who oppose single payer health insurance, family leave, subsidized daycare and other real time benefits which would help poor working families. And it's conservatives who recently cut SNAP benefits, most of which go to families with children.


----------



## hadit

Dragonlady said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And regarding poor black ppl, remember it's the left who pays them not to work and who pays them to have children
> ...while taking their money to kill those same children. It's a nice racket.
> 
> 
> 
> True
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. It's conservatives who refuse to raise the minimum wage. It's conservatives who vote against maternity leave, and job guaranties. It's conservatives who oppose single payer health insurance, family leave, subsidized daycare and other real time benefits which would help poor working families. And it's conservatives who recently cut SNAP benefits, most of which go to families with children.
Click to expand...

We're going to be $20 trillion in debt by the time Obama leaves office.  We can't afford endlessly increasing benefits.


----------



## Adrian

Ah what a slippery slope we slide, when we try to justify homocide.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragonlady said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And regarding poor black ppl, remember it's the left who pays them not to work and who pays them to have children
> ...while taking their money to kill those same children. It's a nice racket.
> 
> 
> 
> True
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. It's conservatives who refuse to raise the minimum wage. It's conservatives who vote against maternity leave, and job guaranties. It's conservatives who oppose single payer health insurance, family leave, subsidized daycare and other real time benefits which would help poor working families. And it's conservatives who recently cut SNAP benefits, most of which go to families with children.
Click to expand...

 And the left pays them not to work. Then makes money off their dead babies.


----------



## Jroc

Dragonlady said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And regarding poor black ppl, remember it's the left who pays them not to work and who pays them to have children
> ...while taking their money to kill those same children. It's a nice racket.
> 
> 
> 
> True
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. It's conservatives who refuse to raise the minimum wage. It's conservatives who vote against maternity leave, and job guaranties. It's conservatives who oppose single payer health insurance, family leave, subsidized daycare and other real time benefits which would help poor working families. And it's conservatives who recently cut SNAP benefits, most of which go to families with children.
Click to expand...



Read my sig...You leftist think that since your intentions are good, all those government programs you listed and many many more are the only solutions. We waste more money creating and funding the bureaucracy than actually helping anyone. You leftists are something. You create all these government programs, which costs tons of money, Then you want to slaughter those who you are going to need, to pay for it...


----------



## koshergrl

Jroc said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And regarding poor black ppl, remember it's the left who pays them not to work and who pays them to have children
> ...while taking their money to kill those same children. It's a nice racket.
> 
> 
> 
> True
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. It's conservatives who refuse to raise the minimum wage. It's conservatives who vote against maternity leave, and job guaranties. It's conservatives who oppose single payer health insurance, family leave, subsidized daycare and other real time benefits which would help poor working families. And it's conservatives who recently cut SNAP benefits, most of which go to families with children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read my sig...You leftist think that since your intentions are good, all those government programs you listed and many many more are the only solutions. We waste more money creating and funding the bureaucracy than actually helping anyone. You leftists are something. You create all these government programs, which costs tons of money, Then you want to slaughter those who you are going to need, to pay for it...
Click to expand...

 Exactly.


----------



## sakinago

Dragonlady said:


> The point isn't whether or not a fetus may become a person. It's whether the family it will be born into can care for another child.
> 
> It still comes back to 80% of all abortions happen for financial reasons. With no maternity leave, low minimum wages, no job guarantees, low income women are having abortions.
> 
> And others have no right to tell them they must have a child they cannot afford.


So your putting fiscal reasons ahed of existing life? So did nazi Germany, we can't afford to take care of our mentally challenged (nor do they have good genes) so we will euthanize them.  If we could hypothetically make a test to show us wether or not a child will become autistic while it's in womb (take in mind all the money it takes to care for an autistic child) should we start aborting those children. What about parents with Huntington's disease? Shall they're offspring be aborted too? You seem to think that a person is a person is a valid argument when it pertains to your political flavor, but dismiss it when it goes against and fiscal reasons take over. 

And joeb, republicans want black people poor? What political party has been in power in Detroit, Philly, Chicago, Baltimore, and pretty much any city you can think of for the last 20 to 40 years. Wow democratic policies have worked wonders for Detroit , 40 years strong and running. Oh not to mention this tidbit, who has been president for the last 7 years, and how much has our black population improved.


----------



## koshergrl

Republicans want black people to be rich! Then maybe they could take care of whites for a while!


----------



## sakinago

Oh and joeb, to quote the fearless founder and hero of Planned parenthood, who we continue to name roads after in democratic cities, I give you Margaret Sanger and her views on black people
Quote:
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. 

End quote: 
I got many more wonderful quotes from this wonderful self proclaimed progressive


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Its in the name of "science" !!!  

Its progress dr mengele ....


----------



## koshergrl

LogikAndReazon said:


> Its in the name of "science" !!!
> 
> Its progress dr mengele ....


 Another hero of Joe's and Dragonbabykiller.


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> You're as backwards boy, the leftist love poor black people. that way people like Obama can use them divide and conquer. blacks and poor whites for that matter have done far worst under the likes of Barack Hussein Obama and the leftist trash.



Said like a typical person who would be a parasite in their community. 



Jroc said:


> Back to the topic, we don't slaughter babies because we think they aren't worth shit, because they may be poor, which appears to be the leftist position



Who is this "we".  The only people terminating pregnancies are the women who have them.  When you volunteer to have a fetus put in your body, then you have a say in the matter.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> This thread is about partial birth abortion, which is illegal. Honesty really is the best policy, gosnell acolyte.



No such thing as "partial birth abortion".  

There's just abortion.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And regarding poor black ppl, remember it's the left who pays them not to work and who pays them to have children
> ...while taking their money to kill those same children. It's a nice racket.
> 
> 
> 
> True
Click to expand...


You know, you Klan bayitches need to make up your minds.  Are blacks having too many babies or too many abortions.  Let me know when you figure it out


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> Republicans want black people to be rich! Then maybe they could take care of whites for a while!



yup. Republicans totally want that. That's why they are cutting scholarships, cutting affirmative action, cutting assistance... because they want the to be rich and pull themselves up by their bootstraps just like George W. and Mitt Romney did.


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> Read my sig...You leftist think that since your intentions are good, all those government programs you listed and many many more are the only solutions. We waste more money creating and funding the bureaucracy than actually helping anyone. You leftists are something. You create all these government programs, which costs tons of money, Then you want to slaughter those who you are going to need, to pay for it...



Hey, if you want to cut governmetn spending, the hundreds of billions we spend propping up the Zionist Entity would be a great place to start...

Are those government programs the "only" solutions?  No. Do they work? Yes.  Have other countries, including Israel, made the welfare state work?  Yup.  

It's funny you want the American Taxpayer to pay for Socialism in Israel but no America.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Oh and joeb, to quote the fearless founder and hero of Planned parenthood, who we continue to name roads after in democratic cities, I give you Margaret Sanger and her views on black people



Guy, if you are going to keep repeating these falsely attributed quotes, there's really no point in talking to you other than the way I'd talk to a Special Needs Child whose flinging his poop into the punch bowl. 

Stop that, Corky.  Just stop it, Corky.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and joeb, to quote the fearless founder and hero of Planned parenthood, who we continue to name roads after in democratic cities, I give you Margaret Sanger and her views on black people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, if you are going to keep repeating these falsely attributed quotes, there's really no point in talking to you other than the way I'd talk to a Special Needs Child whose flinging his poop into the punch bowl.
> 
> Stop that, Corky.  Just stop it, Corky.
Click to expand...


Most definitely Margaret Sanger quote, learn your history. I will cite it for you (
Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s_Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America_.New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.)
Should you really be surprised from someone who wrote love letters to hitler? Here's some more Sanger quotes: 

Give dysgenic groups [people with “bad genes”] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
(Wonder what dysgenic people she's talking about?)

[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

I got more if you need and can cite all


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read my sig...You leftist think that since your intentions are good, all those government programs you listed and many many more are the only solutions. We waste more money creating and funding the bureaucracy than actually helping anyone. You leftists are something. You create all these government programs, which costs tons of money, Then you want to slaughter those who you are going to need, to pay for it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you want to cut governmetn spending, the hundreds of billions we spend propping up the Zionist Entity would be a great place to start...
> 
> Are those government programs the "only" solutions?  No. Do they work? Yes.  Have other countries, including Israel, made the welfare state work?  Yup.
> 
> It's funny you want the American Taxpayer to pay for Socialism in Israel but no America.
Click to expand...

How long do those countries last?  I can give you a capitalist country (not crony capitalism like we have) that has been around for 500 years, has been at the top 3 of almost every category you can think of (despite having practically no natural resources); wealth, standard of living, overall happiness of citizens, education. Which is weird since they're pretty poo poo against socialist policies. Also have some of the lowest crime rates, which is also weird because their gun laws are you are issued an assault rifle as a citizen. That country is Switzerland.


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read my sig...You leftist think that since your intentions are good, all those government programs you listed and many many more are the only solutions. We waste more money creating and funding the bureaucracy than actually helping anyone. You leftists are something. You create all these government programs, which costs tons of money, Then you want to slaughter those who you are going to need, to pay for it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you want to cut governmetn spending, the hundreds of billions we spend propping up the Zionist Entity would be a great place to start...
> 
> Are those government programs the "only" solutions?  No. Do they work? Yes.  Have other countries, including Israel, made the welfare state work?  Yup.
> 
> It's funny you want the American Taxpayer to pay for Socialism in Israel but no America.
Click to expand...

Chump change Jew hater.


----------



## BlueGin

Dragonlady said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And regarding poor black ppl, remember it's the left who pays them not to work and who pays them to have children
> ...while taking their money to kill those same children. It's a nice racket.
> 
> 
> 
> True
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. It's conservatives who refuse to raise the minimum wage. It's conservatives who vote against maternity leave, and job guaranties. It's conservatives who oppose single payer health insurance, family leave, subsidized daycare and other real time benefits which would help poor working families. And it's conservatives who recently cut SNAP benefits, most of which go to families with children.
Click to expand...


They already have daycare aid programs, maternity leave, FMLA, Medicaid,WIC, CHIP, SNAP. And it's pretty common knowledge that the case workers teach people how to fudge the system for more money when they no longer qualify. There are PLENTY of programs. Don't need more.


----------



## Lakhota

*Planned Parenthood: More Sting Videos Are Coming*

WASHINGTON -- An attorney for Planned Parenthood warned Congress on Monday that he expects the Center for Medical Progress, an undercover anti-abortion group, to release more sting videos that claim the family planning provider is engaged in illegal and racially biased activities.

Planned Parenthood sometimes donates, but does not sell, fetal tissue for scientific research at the request of its patients, the family planning provider's attorney, Roger Evans, told the committee in a letter on Monday. He also said the CMP posed as a fetal tissue procurement company called Biomax in order to gain access to Planned Parenthood doctors and facilities, and likely has "thousands of hours of videotape" that it will "deceptively edit into short video clips to release for many months."

The CMP was founded by David Daleiden, an anti-abortion activist who previously worked for the group Live Action, known for its heavily edited undercover videos of Planned Parenthood staffers.

"Indeed, from all that is known today, it appears that the only people who have broken laws are the extremists who have been hounding women and Planned Parenthood doctors for years," Evans added.

*Video: Planned Parenthood Says More Sting Videos Are Coming*

It's so sad that an organization to help women must endure such unethical and vicious attacks by anti-choice zealots.


----------



## Jroc

BlueGin said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And regarding poor black ppl, remember it's the left who pays them not to work and who pays them to have children
> ...while taking their money to kill those same children. It's a nice racket.
> 
> 
> 
> True
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. It's conservatives who refuse to raise the minimum wage. It's conservatives who vote against maternity leave, and job guaranties. It's conservatives who oppose single payer health insurance, family leave, subsidized daycare and other real time benefits which would help poor working families. And it's conservatives who recently cut SNAP benefits, most of which go to families with children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They already have daycare aid programs, maternity leave, FMLA, Medicaid,WIC, CHIP, SNAP. And it's pretty common knowledge that the case workers teach people how to fudge the system for more money when they no longer qualify. *There are PLENTY of programs*. Don't need more.
Click to expand...



They need jobs not more stupid programs ran by leftist bureaucrats siphoning off money for themselves


----------



## Cecilie1200

BlueGin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says nothing of the sort.  And "well of souls"?  What in the blue bloody hell are you driveling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was in a Demi Moore movie. The Seven Signs
Click to expand...


So we're learning our theology and philosophy from Demi Moore movies now?  Will I be the first person today to say that that's totally insane?


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says that life begins when the soul enters the body, at birth. One of the signs of the Apocalypse is that the Well of Souls will be empty and a child will be born without a soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says nothing of the sort.  And "well of souls"?  What in the blue bloody hell are you driveling about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was in a Demi Moore movie. The Seven Signs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wth lolol I swear....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Highlander... Seven Signs... Jon Stewart.
> 
> Libs watch a lot of TV apparently
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Instead of reading.
Click to expand...


Well, you know, they can't.  Public education.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> The Well of Souls is in Jerusalem under the Temple Mount.  Some of us do more reading than you can imagine.



Really?  You read in a real, non-fiction book somewhere that there's a Well of Souls?  Do they have tours or something you can take to see it?


----------



## EverCurious

BlueGin said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is nothing wrong with a well run orphanage..Babies don't end up there anyways. There are many people waiting to adapt babies, get it straight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most end up in foster care and are eventually adopted. Lots of good programs for these kids... See Heart Gallery just to name one.
Click to expand...



I have my own [contrary] personal family experience that the foster care system isn't "good" as a whole.  I'll admit a lot of it is personal experience, but here's some of my supporting sources:

~ 9 things to know about kids in foster care. Plus an unforgettable view into their lives.

2. Foster kids can suffer from PTSD at almost two times the rate of returning veterans.
And PTSD can mimic a lot of other mental illnesses, and it can manifest as nightmares, flashbacks, fight-or-flee responses, anger outbursts, and hyper-vigilance (being on "red alert" at all times), among other symptoms.   

3. The average age of a foster child is 9 years old.
They're just on that edge of childhood, and chances are, it's been a pretty messed up childhood at that. Trauma _does that_. 

4. About half of all foster kids are in non-relative foster homes. 
8% are in institutions, 6% are in group homes, and only 4% are in pre-adoptive homes. Read that again — _only 4% are in pre-adoptive homes._

5. Some of foster children experience multiple placements. In some cases, eight or more.
That's eight homes that they move into — and out of. And just consider ... that means they lose not just adults and other kids with whom they are establishing a bond, but friends, schoolmates, pets. 

6. The average foster child remains in the system for almost two years before being reunited with their biological parents, adopted, aging out, or other outcomes. 
8% of them remain in foster care for over five years. Of the 238,000 foster kids who left the system in 2013, about half were reunited with parents or primary caregivers, 21% were adopted, 15% went to live with a relative or other guardian, and 10% were emancipated (aged out).

7. In 2013, more than 23,000 young people aged out of foster care with no permanent family to end up with. 
And if you add that up, year after year, hundreds of thousands of foster youth will have aged out of the system. What does that look like? "You're 18. You've got no place to live and no family. Good luck — buh-bye now!" One-quarter of former foster kids experience homelessness within four years of exiting the system.

8. Foster "alumni" (those who have been in foster homes and either adopted, returned to parents, or aged out) are likely to suffer serious mental health consequences. 
They are four-five times more likely to be hospitalized for attempting suicide and five-eight times more likely to be hospitalized for serious psychiatric disorders in their teens.

Oh, and if you cry easy, I'd skip that video "ReMoved", part two is on link.  I'm pretty non-emotional and that shit really tore me up. >.<  Reminded me of what my adopted step-sister went through; the bio-parental abuse, bio-mom losing custody, and being placed "anywhere that'll take her, but only if we like them" policies of the gov.  I'm just happy my bio-dad stepped up and adopted her, including mortgaging his home to pay for all the legal fees to "beat the gov." to be "allowed" to do so. - The court felt that because he was a farmer he didn't make enough money, because he was single he couldn't care for her, because he wasn't college educated he wasn't a good parent, and worse because he'd given custody of me to my mother in their divorce, he wasn't a fit parent.


~  Adoption Statistics Statistic Brain 

Included as a supplement to the above article; 43% of adopted children lived with their birth family before adoption.

Also as a counter/supplemental to my personal experience. The stats reflect that negative social/emotional wellbeing of adopted kids are outweighed substantially by the positive well being at 88%.  I do try to balance that with my family experience, but, ya know, my sister is one of those 9%, those 14%, "experiences" and /she/ didn't do anything wrong in the mess; it's not her fault but ultimately, intentionally or not, she /was/ punished for it. 

Her bio-mother dumped my dad and left for Cali. As no notice or anything, just one day my sister and here mom weren't there when he got home from combining, he received divorce paperwork in the mail citing "irreconcilable differences" a couple months later.  Then out of the blue, just over a year after she left him, he gets a call from my then 11 year old sister in a total panic; her new step-dad was beating the shit out of her and her mom so she'd run away from home and she didn't know what to do.  My Dad, of course, dropped everything and jumped on the next plane to Cali to do what he could, which wasn't much.  He [mistakenly?] went to the police after picking up my sister and calming her down, they took my sister away from him that night, told him to go home, and put her in some kind of half-way house while they "investigated."  We don't even know what the police and CPS or w/e found out, it's all sealed, my sister doesn't even know.  Next thing she knows she's called into court to testify about her new stepdad's abuse of her and her mom.  Couple months later she's back in court cause her bio-mom's parental rights are being terminated for child neglect abuse and drug addition and she's immediately put into foster care with a family that she said had 6 other foster kids.  Her first instinct, again, call my dad, so she calls him up and within a month he's mortgaged the house to hire a lawyer and petition to adopt her (they rejected his non-represented request because he was an "estranged" step-parent, apparently it's SOP?)  Then her bio-mom committed suicide.  Dad had to fight the system for a year to adopt her, even though he helped raise her from age 5 to 10, even though she, age 12 now, wanted him to adopt her...  Apparently the system doesn't feel that 5 years is enough time to establish a "meaningful" bond as a step-parent.

Sorry, I'm going off on a tangent, back to the subject...

I find this stat "concerning," percentage of adoptive parents receiving adoption subsidy: 87%.  I mean I can see ya know, it's there so why not take it, but at the same time it leads into a worrisome thought that people adopt for the subsidy.  Don't know how much money it is though so maybe I'm just biased against the system.  I have a serious love / hate thing with adoption in general; we can't just abandon these poor kids [again], but we shouldn't /need/ to financially motivate people to adopt either.  The system is idk it needs work, it needs... something, I just don't know what (and that really frustrates me, usually I have an idea for a solution or something, but I think I'm just too "close" to the subject)


~ Statistics Intercountry Adoption  (You can see the global trend, also check out the adoptions by state and individual years.)


~ Facts and Statistics

Only 101,666 of 397,122 children living without permanent families are "available" for adoption (Article doesn't say, but I'm guessing the majority are kids taken from their parents with the eventual hope to reunite them?)

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Nearly 25% of youth aging out did not have a high school diploma or GED, and a mere 6% had finished a two- or four-year degree after aging out of foster care. One study shows 70% of all youth in foster care have the desire to attend college.

Adopted children make-up roughly 2% of the total child population under the age of 18, but 11% of all adolescents referred for therapy have been adopted.  Post-adoption services are important to all types of adoption, whether foster care adoption, international adoption, or domestic infant adoption.


And specifically the stats on "orphanages" related to the quoted:

No child under three years of age should be placed in institutional care without a parent or primary caregiver, according to research from 32 European countries, including nine in-depth country studies, which considered the “risk of harm in terms of attachment disorder, developmental delay and neural atrophy in the developing brain."

Children raised in orphanages have an IQ 20 points lower than their peers in foster care, according to a meta-analysis of 75 studies (more than 3,800 children in 19 countries).

As of 2012, more than 58,000 children in the U.S. foster care system were placed in institutions or group homes, not in traditional foster homes.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Most definitely Margaret Sanger quote, learn your history.



Nope, completely taken out of context and distorted, Corky.  You just crossed into retard land, and really can't be taken seriously anymore.


----------



## Care4all

Cecilie1200 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Well of Souls is in Jerusalem under the Temple Mount.  Some of us do more reading than you can imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You read in a real, non-fiction book somewhere that there's a Well of Souls?  Do they have tours or something you can take to see it?
Click to expand...

Google it....the well of souls...holy of holies....there are Jewish, Muslim, and later Christian traditions regarding it....  (I am on my Kindle and have not a clue on how to copy and paste on it....)


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> How long do those countries last? I can give you a capitalist country (not crony capitalism like we have) that has been around for 500 years, has been at the top 3 of almost every category you can think of (despite having practically no natural resources); wealth, standard of living, overall happiness of citizens, education. Which is weird since they're pretty poo poo against socialist policies. Also have some of the lowest crime rates, which is also weird because their gun laws are you are issued an assault rifle as a citizen. That country is Switzerland.



Duuuuuh, Corky, Switzerland is successful because it allows a lot of shady people to hide their money there...  Duuuuuuhhhhh. 

Switzerland also has a pretty thorough welfare state.  

It also has only about 8 million people.  But never mind, Corky.  Capitalism works.  No, really.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> They already have daycare aid programs, maternity leave, FMLA, Medicaid,WIC, CHIP, SNAP. And it's pretty common knowledge that the case workers teach people how to fudge the system for more money when they no longer qualify. There are PLENTY of programs. Don't need more.



Of course not.  You don't give a fuck about poor children when they aren't in fetal form. 

You do get that there is no LEGAL requirement to provide paid maternity leave, and the family leave is unpaid in most cases.  After 12 weeks, they can legally fire you. 

Unless you are bright like my ex-boss and just fire women when you find out they are pregnant.  The joys of "at-Will" employment.  

Now, let's look at the average snap benefit.  A family of four gets a maximum monthly benefit of $649.   That works out to $21.61 a day.  Now, if you can provide three meals a day for four people for $21.61, you are probably up there with Jesus and the loaves and fishes thing.  

Medicaid and CHIP are medical insurance programs.  ONly really apply if you get sick.  YOu'd be amazed how fast a medical crisis can wipe out a poor family.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most definitely Margaret Sanger quote, learn your history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, completely taken out of context and distorted, Corky.  You just crossed into retard land, and really can't be taken seriously anymore.
Click to expand...

How can that, or her other quotes be taken out of context, in what context does that statement become ok? Besides I thought she never said it. The lady proposed laws to only allow the worthy deemed by her and the govt to have children, how is she being taken out of context?


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> How can that, or her other quotes be taken out of context, in what context does that statement become ok? Besides I thought she never said it. The lady proposed laws to only allow the worthy deemed by her and the govt to have children, how is she being taken out of context?



"Dooooy, Corky not understand Context. Context Mean to Corky." 

Hey, it's national Hug a Retard day, no one is trying to take your helmet. 

(And in case you are too stu pid to take a hint, this means I'm done with you. YOu just crossed into the "Too Retarded to be treated seriously" when you started with the Sanger bullshit that got debunked DAYS ago in this thread...)


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already have daycare aid programs, maternity leave, FMLA, Medicaid,WIC, CHIP, SNAP. And it's pretty common knowledge that the case workers teach people how to fudge the system for more money when they no longer qualify. There are PLENTY of programs. Don't need more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  You don't give a fuck about poor children when they aren't in fetal form.
> 
> You do get that there is no LEGAL requirement to provide paid maternity leave, and the family leave is unpaid in most cases.  After 12 weeks, they can legally fire you.
> 
> Unless you are bright like my ex-boss and just fire women when you find out they are pregnant.  The joys of "at-Will" employment.
> 
> Now, let's look at the average snap benefit.  A family of four gets a maximum monthly benefit of $649.   That works out to $21.61 a day.  Now, if you can provide three meals a day for four people for $21.61, you are probably up there with Jesus and the loaves and fishes thing.
> 
> Medicaid and CHIP are medical insurance programs.  ONly really apply if you get sick.  YOu'd be amazed how fast a medical crisis can wipe out a poor family.
Click to expand...


If you can't feed 4 people on 650.00 a month then there is something wrong with you. I spend less then that and don't have SNAP.

If Medicaid sucks so bad. Why did Obamacare force everyone to sign up for benefits??

You are full of shit...as most libs are.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already have daycare aid programs, maternity leave, FMLA, Medicaid,WIC, CHIP, SNAP. And it's pretty common knowledge that the case workers teach people how to fudge the system for more money when they no longer qualify. There are PLENTY of programs. Don't need more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not.  You don't give a fuck about poor children when they aren't in fetal form.
> 
> You do get that there is no LEGAL requirement to provide paid maternity leave, and the family leave is unpaid in most cases.  After 12 weeks, they can legally fire you.
> 
> Unless you are bright like my ex-boss and just fire women when you find out they are pregnant.  The joys of "at-Will" employment.
> 
> Now, let's look at the average snap benefit.  A family of four gets a maximum monthly benefit of $649.   That works out to $21.61 a day.  Now, if you can provide three meals a day for four people for $21.61, you are probably up there with Jesus and the loaves and fishes thing.
> 
> Medicaid and CHIP are medical insurance programs.  ONly really apply if you get sick.  YOu'd be amazed how fast a medical crisis can wipe out a poor family.
Click to expand...


All corporations and Gov jobs offer maternity leave and FMLA (paid). Even fast good chains such as McDonalds and Starbucks offer paid leave. Only way you wouldn't qualify is if your probationary period was not over.

Next...


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can that, or her other quotes be taken out of context, in what context does that statement become ok? Besides I thought she never said it. The lady proposed laws to only allow the worthy deemed by her and the govt to have children, how is she being taken out of context?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Dooooy, Corky not understand Context. Context Mean to Corky."
> 
> Hey, it's national Hug a Retard day, no one is trying to take your helmet.
> 
> (And in case you are too stu pid to take a hint, this means I'm done with you. YOu just crossed into the "Too Retarded to be treated seriously" when you started with the Sanger bullshit that got debunked DAYS ago in this thread...)
Click to expand...

So now it's not about context, it was debunked? Despite me citing it (the letter) and a book from one of her followers, you can declare the quote debunked based on what? Besides  how does that quote not line up with her well documented and proposed laws in her own book about dysgenic people???


----------



## Jroc

These people should be closed down and locked up


----------



## BlindBoo

Jroc said:


> These people should be closed down and locked up



Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> If you can't feed 4 people on 650.00 a month then there is something wrong with you. I spend less then that and don't have SNAP.



So you really think you can feed a family of four on $17.00 a day?  Really?  




BlueGin said:


> If Medicaid sucks so bad. Why did Obamacare force everyone to sign up for benefits??



which wasn't the point I was arguing. But that's okay, we know you're "Special".  



BlueGin said:


> All corporations and Gov jobs offer maternity leave and FMLA (paid). Even fast good chains such as McDonalds and Starbucks offer paid leave. Only way you wouldn't qualify is if your probationary period was not over.



Really?  Let's look at that claim. 

The sad state of benefits for new moms on the job - The Washington Post

In 2008, 16 percent of those companies that offer paid maternity leave promised to fully pay women their prior salaries while they were out; in 2014, that number is just 9 percent.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> So now it's not about context, it was debunked? ??



Corky, I'm done with you if you are just going to keep repeating debunked lies...


----------



## mudwhistle

Planned Parenthood.....killing babies for parts for over 30 years........


----------



## FA_Q2

BlindBoo said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people should be closed down and locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
Click to expand...

What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?

Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?


----------



## Katzndogz

Seeing the justification liberals have for selling these body parts it's easy to understand how the nazis could engage in medical experimentation.   Now the American medical community giving black men syphilis so they could be studied sounds reasonable.


----------



## koshergrl

The Nazi preoccupation with perfect children and carefully manipulated breeding led to the atrocities that the Nazis are now famous for. It wasn't their POLITICS that made the Nazis disgusting, it was their statist progressivism.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> The Nazi preoccupation with perfect children and carefully manipulated breeding led to the atrocities that the Nazis are now famous for. It wasn't their POLITICS that made the Nazis disgusting, it was their statist progressivism.



YOu realize abortion was a crime in Nazi Germany, punishable by death, right?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

I don't think that any laws were broken.

However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

paddymurphy said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a moot point. Walker will completely defund Planned Parenthood, once he's sworn in.
> 
> 
> 
> A: He will not win.  B:  If he does, that would have to be passed by Congress and the Senate. C:  There are no federal funds that go to PP that are used in abortion services so, if he guts that funding, it will only mean less services to women for cancer screening and birth control.  The great reduction we have seen in teen pregnancies and abortions will suddenly reverse as women lose access to those non-abortion services.
Click to expand...


It's been a long time coming that they need to separate the services.

Giving women access to cancer screenings is not planned parenthood.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Nazi preoccupation with perfect children and carefully manipulated breeding led to the atrocities that the Nazis are now famous for. It wasn't their POLITICS that made the Nazis disgusting, it was their statist progressivism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu realize abortion was a crime in Nazi Germany, punishable by death, right?
Click to expand...

Well yea, you can't have people offing your own master race, they needed their superior soldiers for world domination. What was ok was euthinizing their mentally challenged for fiscal reasons. Why did we encourage 98% of abortions... For fiscal reasons. If socialism is in control the less people there are the more there is to go around for everyone else. And if your best logical arguments are made up of name calling, and anyone who opposes my view must be a retard, then yea I guess we're done talking


----------



## koshergrl

Sun Devil 92 said:


> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.


It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
Click to expand...

To which law do you refer?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

koshergrl said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
Click to expand...


So this is something they are doing ?


----------



## FA_Q2

Faun said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which law do you refer?
Click to expand...


You know that she specifically states it is illegal in the video but is not averse to making the suggestion to the doctor, right?


----------



## BlindBoo

FA_Q2 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people should be closed down and locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
Click to expand...


Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why

CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.


----------



## Faun

FA_Q2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which law do you refer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that she specifically states it is illegal in the video but is not averse to making the suggestion to the doctor, right?
Click to expand...

Do you not know the specific law being violated?


----------



## FA_Q2

Faun said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which law do you refer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that she specifically states it is illegal in the video but is not averse to making the suggestion to the doctor, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not know the specific law being violated?
Click to expand...

42 U.S. Code 289g 2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue US Law LII Legal Information Institute

(a) Purchase of tissue 
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for *valuable consideration* if the transfer affects interstate commerce.

It is illegal to sell fetal tissue for profit.  It sounds really really bad when you state you need a new lambo at the end of the financial discussion.  i do not understand why she was so idiotic anyway - who negotiate a HIGHER price for themselves - that should have warned her to end the conversation there.  Not only possibly negotiating illegal deals but also an idiot.


----------



## FA_Q2

BlindBoo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people should be closed down and locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
Click to expand...

Amazing that they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera from a MAJOR institution and you want to prosecute those that are doing the taping because it might put that institution in a bad light.

People like you make me sick and they are the core problem with the laws like the one you cite – you not only condone illegal activities but you want to ensure that they CANNOT BE EXPOSED AS WELL.  IOW, you back over corruption.


----------



## BlindBoo

FA_Q2 said:


> they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera



Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.



FA_Q2 said:


> you not only condone illegal activities but



Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.


----------



## koshergrl

FA_Q2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which law do you refer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that she specifically states it is illegal in the video but is not averse to making the suggestion to the doctor, right?
Click to expand...

 I love the whole "lowballing" part of the conversation. Especially the part where she says she wants a Lamborghini.


----------



## koshergrl

Sun Devil 92 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So this is something they are doing ?
Click to expand...

 According to what they say in both tapes, yup.


----------



## FA_Q2

BlindBoo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you not only condone illegal activities but
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.
Click to expand...

We already covered this - she is negotiating compensation for the donations and compensation is illegal for profit (a notion backed by here rather insensitive comments).  Further it is illegal to change the procedure for the collection of said sample and she DIRECTLY points that out but then goes right on to say that she has no problem asking the doctor to do exactly that.  Have you even bothered to watch the damn video?


----------



## koshergrl

FA_Q2 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you not only condone illegal activities but
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already covered this - she is negotiating compensation for the donations and compensation is illegal for profit (a notion backed by here rather insensitive comments).  Further it is illegal to change the procedure for the collection of said sample and she DIRECTLY points that out but then goes right on to say that she has no problem asking the doctor to do exactly that.  Have you even bothered to watch the damn video?
Click to expand...

 Both videos. They say the same thing in BOTH videos.


----------



## sakinago

If they were donating, they would have a set price on obtaining and shipping the "materials", there wouldn't be any haggling involved, outside of distance to the facility and cost of that transportation, but i'd imagine it's close by. Notice how she did not want to name a price first and made the joke about first person to do so loses. Makes me wonder how much she would have taken per specimen.


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> If they were donating, they would have a set price on obtaining and shipping the "materials", there wouldn't be any haggling involved, outside of distance to the facility and cost of that transportation, but i'd imagine it's close by. Notice how she did not want to name a price first and made the joke about first person to do so loses. Makes me wonder how much she would have taken per specimen.


 Exactly! That's the "lowballing" conversation.


----------



## FA_Q2

koshergrl said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which law do you refer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that she specifically states it is illegal in the video but is not averse to making the suggestion to the doctor, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love the whole "lowballing" part of the conversation. Especially the part where she says she wants a Lamborghini.
Click to expand...

And therein is the problem.  This really shows the intent of turning a profit.  Not once do I see any exploration of the actual costs associated with PP for the collection.  That is completely ignored.  Instead they are looking at compensation in general.  That lends a LOT of credence to the idea that this is an illegal sale.  Further, the fact that she is utterly ignorant of the price makes no sense at all.  This is NOT something that would be ‘negotiated.’  PP should know what it costs to collect and store the specimens and charge that amount according to law.  Any negotiation would be irrelevant as that only relates to profit.


There is a problem on the other side though – these are supposed to be high level employees – not your general ground worker – and the compensation rates we are talking about are rather low.  A hundred bucks a specimen for a hundred specimen a year is only going to net around 10 grand minus expenses.  That hardly warrants anyone of any real power within the company to negotiate the terms.  The question then is why they are having this conversation with these people and are they really trying to garner profit from these sales.  It certainly sounds like to from the tape but it also seems rather like they are dealing with low numbers.


----------



## Dragonlady

FA_Q2 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people should be closed down and locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera from a MAJOR institution and you want to prosecute those that are doing the taping because it might put that institution in a bad light.
> 
> People like you make me sick and they are the core problem with the laws like the one you cite – you not only condone illegal activities but you want to ensure that they CANNOT BE EXPOSED AS WELL.  IOW, you back over corruption.
Click to expand...


They should be prosecuted for fraud and defamation because they cut the footage from the interview to make it appear that the doctor was talking about selling fetal body parts when she was talking about tissue donation. 

The film, as released, is a total fraud and has been exposed as such.


----------



## FA_Q2

sakinago said:


> If they were donating, they would have a set price on obtaining and shipping the "materials", there wouldn't be any haggling involved, outside of distance to the facility and cost of that transportation, but i'd imagine it's close by. Notice how she did not want to name a price first and made the joke about first person to do so loses. Makes me wonder how much she would have taken per specimen.


Ninja’d. 

This is a major sticking point for me.  There is but one purpose to a negotiation and that is determining profit margin.


----------



## koshergrl

FA_Q2 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which law do you refer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that she specifically states it is illegal in the video but is not averse to making the suggestion to the doctor, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love the whole "lowballing" part of the conversation. Especially the part where she says she wants a Lamborghini.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And therein is the problem.  This really shows the intent of turning a profit.  Not once do I see any exploration of the actual costs associated with PP for the collection.  That is completely ignored.  Instead they are looking at compensation in general.  That lends a LOT of credence to the idea that this is an illegal sale.  Further, the fact that she is utterly ignorant of the price makes no sense at all.  This is NOT something that would be ‘negotiated.’  PP should know what it costs to collect and store the specimens and charge that amount according to law.  Any negotiation would be irrelevant as that only relates to profit.
> 
> 
> There is a problem on the other side though – these are supposed to be high level employees – not your general ground worker – and the compensation rates we are talking about are rather low.  A hundred bucks a specimen for a hundred specimen a year is only going to net around 10 grand minus expenses.  That hardly warrants anyone of any real power within the company to negotiate the terms.  The question then is why they are having this conversation with these people and are they really trying to garner profit from these sales.  It certainly sounds like to from the tape but it also seems rather like they are dealing with low numbers.
Click to expand...

 They don't have high level employees. The clinicians who work in PP abortion clinics can't get jobs in mainstream medicine. There is no oversight, often they aren't doctors.


----------



## koshergrl

Dragonlady said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people should be closed down and locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera from a MAJOR institution and you want to prosecute those that are doing the taping because it might put that institution in a bad light.
> 
> People like you make me sick and they are the core problem with the laws like the one you cite – you not only condone illegal activities but you want to ensure that they CANNOT BE EXPOSED AS WELL.  IOW, you back over corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should be prosecuted for fraud and defamation because they cut the footage from the interview to make it appear that the doctor was talking about selling fetal body parts when she was talking about tissue donation.
> 
> The film, as released, is a total fraud and has been exposed as such.
Click to expand...

 
No, it isn't, and no it hasn't. You saying you don't like it doesn't make it a fraud, babykiller.

I imagine your favorite part is where they talk about how they avoid the "crunchy parts" in order to facilitate harvest, right?


----------



## koshergrl

So explain exactly what part of the film is fraudulent? Explain how that works.

I'll wait.


----------



## koshergrl

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera from a MAJOR institution and you want to prosecute those that are doing the taping because it might put that institution in a bad light.
> 
> People like you make me sick and they are the core problem with the laws like the one you cite – you not only condone illegal activities but you want to ensure that they CANNOT BE EXPOSED AS WELL.  IOW, you back over corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should be prosecuted for fraud and defamation because they cut the footage from the interview to make it appear that the doctor was talking about selling fetal body parts when she was talking about tissue donation.
> 
> The film, as released, is a total fraud and has been exposed as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't be serious.
Click to expand...

 
They hire butchers like dragonlady. Fanatical, felonious pukes.


----------



## FA_Q2

Dragonlady said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people should be closed down and locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera from a MAJOR institution and you want to prosecute those that are doing the taping because it might put that institution in a bad light.
> 
> People like you make me sick and they are the core problem with the laws like the one you cite – you not only condone illegal activities but you want to ensure that they CANNOT BE EXPOSED AS WELL.  IOW, you back over corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should be prosecuted for fraud and defamation because they cut the footage from the interview to make it appear that the doctor was talking about selling fetal body parts when she was talking about tissue donation.
> 
> The film, as released, is a total fraud and has been exposed as such.
Click to expand...

The film, in its totality, was released.  Sorry if that does not stick with your talking points.

Further, there is no fraud here – they are releasing a video that shows what seems to be PP selling those tissue donations.  Simple as that.  She made those statements and they are not taken out of context.  The fact that they claimed to have represented a research company seeking those samples was stated in the video many times.  It was not covered up.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

It's all about optics.

Only the hard core believers are going to back PP on this one.

They lost more stock on this one....fraudlent or not.

Scares me that you can't have dinner and not wind up on YouTube.


----------



## BlindBoo

FA_Q2 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you not only condone illegal activities but
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already covered this - she is negotiating compensation for the donations and compensation is illegal for profit (a notion backed by here rather insensitive comments).  Further it is illegal to change the procedure for the collection of said sample and she DIRECTLY points that out but then goes right on to say that she has no problem asking the doctor to do exactly that.  Have you even bothered to watch the damn video?
Click to expand...


The video doesn't prove Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

koshergrl said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera from a MAJOR institution and you want to prosecute those that are doing the taping because it might put that institution in a bad light.
> 
> People like you make me sick and they are the core problem with the laws like the one you cite – you not only condone illegal activities but you want to ensure that they CANNOT BE EXPOSED AS WELL.  IOW, you back over corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should be prosecuted for fraud and defamation because they cut the footage from the interview to make it appear that the doctor was talking about selling fetal body parts when she was talking about tissue donation.
> 
> The film, as released, is a total fraud and has been exposed as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it isn't, and no it hasn't. You saying you don't like it doesn't make it a fraud, babykiller.
> 
> I imagine your favorite part is where they talk about how they avoid the "crunchy parts" in order to facilitate harvest, right?
Click to expand...


The claim of fraud is dismissive.  

There is plenty that will resonate with people in this clip and I don't believe it was "fraudlent".  Nobody does this and then fail to put max spin on it.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

BlindBoo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you not only condone illegal activities but
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already covered this - she is negotiating compensation for the donations and compensation is illegal for profit (a notion backed by here rather insensitive comments).  Further it is illegal to change the procedure for the collection of said sample and she DIRECTLY points that out but then goes right on to say that she has no problem asking the doctor to do exactly that.  Have you even bothered to watch the damn video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video doesn't prove Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal.
Click to expand...


I don't know one way or the other...but they took a black eye.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Well yea, you can't have people offing your own master race, they needed their superior soldiers for world domination. What was ok was euthinizing their mentally challenged for fiscal reasons. Why did we encourage 98% of abortions... For fiscal reasons. If socialism is in control the less people there are the more there is to go around for everyone else. And if your best logical arguments are made up of name calling, and anyone who opposes my view must be a retard, then yea I guess we're done talking



Yes, Corky, I can see why the thought of euthanizing retards horrifies you.  But you're a retard and I was done talking to you pages ago.


----------



## JoeB131

BlindBoo said:


> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.



They also filed their tax status as a charity, even though they've done no charitable work in three years of existence.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> I love the whole "lowballing" part of the conversation. Especially the part where she says she wants a Lamborghini.



You mean the part that was sardonic and no one would take seriously.


----------



## sakinago

Dragonlady said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people should be closed down and locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera from a MAJOR institution and you want to prosecute those that are doing the taping because it might put that institution in a bad light.
> 
> People like you make me sick and they are the core problem with the laws like the one you cite – you not only condone illegal activities but you want to ensure that they CANNOT BE EXPOSED AS WELL.  IOW, you back over corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should be prosecuted for fraud and defamation because they cut the footage from the interview to make it appear that the doctor was talking about selling fetal body parts when she was talking about tissue donation.
> 
> The film, as released, is a total fraud and has been exposed as such.
Click to expand...

Dragon lady,The only reason for cutting parts out of the film is bc sadly the attention span of the average American cannot handle the full 3 hour videos, which they release as well. Please go through and watch the full film, and show us the parts that are out of context. 

Secondly in the first video she is talking about specific organs, like the liver witch apparently in high demand. Just bc you call it a fetus (Latin for infant) does not mean that it does not have functioning organs...organs that you are able to run tests on. 

And thirdly in the second video they are saying they want the later term abortions, why bc they want organs, Not tissue, organs. Also can be called body parts


----------



## JoeB131

FA_Q2 said:


> It is illegal to sell fetal tissue for profit. It sounds really really bad when you state you need a new lambo at the end of the financial discussion. i do not understand why she was so idiotic anyway - who negotiate a HIGHER price for themselves - that should have warned her to end the conversation there. Not only possibly negotiating illegal deals but also an idiot.



Since she hadn't sold anything and said that she'd have to research it, not so much.


----------



## FA_Q2

BlindBoo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you not only condone illegal activities but
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already covered this - she is negotiating compensation for the donations and compensation is illegal for profit (a notion backed by here rather insensitive comments).  Further it is illegal to change the procedure for the collection of said sample and she DIRECTLY points that out but then goes right on to say that she has no problem asking the doctor to do exactly that.  Have you even bothered to watch the damn video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video doesn't prove Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal.
Click to expand...

No, it brings it to the light where it will be investigated.

You are not this dense blind – you are doing this on purpose.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Secondly in the first video she is talking about specific organs, like the liver witch apparently in high demand. Just bc you call it a fetus (Latin for infant) does not mean that it does not have functioning organs...organs that you are able to run tests on.



Hey, Corky, learn the difference between "witch" and "which".  

Secondly, the organs aren't functioning.  The fetus would die within minutes of being out of womb. 

Third, Fetus is not Latin for "infant". It's Latin for "To bring forth" 

Fetus Define Fetus at Dictionary.com


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> So explain exactly what part of the film is fraudulent? Explain how that works.
> 
> I'll wait.



The part where both of these doctors clearly say, "We aren't in the business of selling tissue".


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yea, you can't have people offing your own master race, they needed their superior soldiers for world domination. What was ok was euthinizing their mentally challenged for fiscal reasons. Why did we encourage 98% of abortions... For fiscal reasons. If socialism is in control the less people there are the more there is to go around for everyone else. And if your best logical arguments are made up of name calling, and anyone who opposes my view must be a retard, then yea I guess we're done talking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Corky, I can see why the thought of euthanizing retards horrifies you.  But you're a retard and I was done talking to you pages ago.
Click to expand...


Apparently not.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

FA_Q2 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you not only condone illegal activities but
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already covered this - she is negotiating compensation for the donations and compensation is illegal for profit (a notion backed by here rather insensitive comments).  Further it is illegal to change the procedure for the collection of said sample and she DIRECTLY points that out but then goes right on to say that she has no problem asking the doctor to do exactly that.  Have you even bothered to watch the damn video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video doesn't prove Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it brings it to the light where it will be investigated.
> 
> You are not this dense blind – you are doing this on purpose.
Click to expand...


Yep.....does not need to be illegal.....just sound bad.


----------



## Bobby1250

Manonthestreet said:


> I thought it was the evil Jews doing this...not good libs



It is.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly in the first video she is talking about specific organs, like the liver witch apparently in high demand. Just bc you call it a fetus (Latin for infant) does not mean that it does not have functioning organs...organs that you are able to run tests on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Corky, learn the difference between "witch" and "which".
> 
> Secondly, the organs aren't functioning.  The fetus would die within minutes of being out of womb.
> 
> Third, Fetus is not Latin for "infant". It's Latin for "To bring forth"
> 
> Fetus Define Fetus at Dictionary.com
Click to expand...

Thought we were done talking but yes, to bring forth, also a term we know as offspring, aka infant. Sorry it doesn't fit your English way of thinking, but I don't think the ancient latins really cared about the different terms we call our young. Ancient Greeks loved the word we loosely translate as: to loose upon, but we don't seem to use it, ever hear of the phrase lost in translation? And if your going to reference something, make sure you read the whole thing, it even says offspring in there. 

And a fetus at that age of gestation would die from lungs not having enough surfactant, or lubricant if you will, but their livers can still filter and their hearts can still pump, and their lungs can still respirate. But hey newborns don't have a fully developed immune system for a while so I guess they're just tissue.


----------



## Faun

FA_Q2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To which law do you refer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that she specifically states it is illegal in the video but is not averse to making the suggestion to the doctor, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not know the specific law being violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 42 U.S. Code 289g 2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> (a) Purchase of tissue
> It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for *valuable consideration* if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
> 
> It is illegal to sell fetal tissue for profit.  It sounds really really bad when you state you need a new lambo at the end of the financial discussion.  i do not understand why she was so idiotic anyway - who negotiate a HIGHER price for themselves - that should have warned her to end the conversation there.  Not only possibly negotiating illegal deals but also an idiot.
Click to expand...

A) that law has absolutely jack shit to do with @koshergirl's complaint that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. That is the law I asked for.

B) Planned Parenthood was not acquiring valuable consideration, paying the women having abortions, or donating the organs to their relatives. So by that measure, they were not in violation of the law you posted.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

JoeB131 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So explain exactly what part of the film is fraudulent? Explain how that works.
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where both of these doctors clearly say, "We aren't in the business of selling tissue".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that's why they have been recorded negotiating a deal
Click to expand...


----------



## Faun

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So explain exactly what part of the film is fraudulent? Explain how that works.
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where both of these doctors clearly say, "We aren't in the business of selling tissue".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that's why they have been recorded negotiating a deal
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

As she said in the video ... costs to cover their expenses. Also, the ones trying to make it for profit were CMP. The doctor, who said she hadn't discussed money in years, did not know offhand what the cost is. When she threw out a figure she made off the top of her head, it was CMP who tried to increase the price so they could show Planned Parenthood was profiting.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So explain exactly what part of the film is fraudulent? Explain how that works.
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where both of these doctors clearly say, "We aren't in the business of selling tissue".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that's why they have been recorded negotiating a deal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As she said in the video ... costs to cover their expenses. Also, the ones trying to make it for profit were CMP. The doctor, who said she hadn't discussed money in years, did not know offhand what the cost is. When she threw out a figure she made off the top of her head, it was CMP who tried to increase the price so they could show Planned Parenthood was profiting.
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous for 2 reasons. One being that she should know what the cost of storage and transportation is, especially going into a business meeting. And she should have said that cost and told them to give nothing over that.

2. As I pointed out earlier she didn't want to begin NEGOTIATING the "cost" and was clearly worrying about selling herself short. She implied that the cost would for transportation, shipping, etc...just like a good drug dealer carefully choosing their words not to implicate themselves


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Thought we were done talking but yes, to bring forth, also a term we know as offspring, aka infant. Sorry it doesn't fit your English way of thinking, but I don't think the ancient latins really cared about the different terms we call our young.



Actually, The Romans performed abortions.  

The Romans and Greeks weren't much concerned with protecting the unborn, and when they did object to abortion it was often because the father didn't want to be deprived of a child that he felt entitled to.

The early philosophers also argued that a foetus did not become formed and begin to live until at least 40 days after conception for a male, and around 80 days for a female. The philosopher Aristotle wrote:

...when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation.

Aristotle, Politics 7.16


BBC - Ethics - Abortion Historical attitudes to abortion


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So explain exactly what part of the film is fraudulent? Explain how that works.
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where both of these doctors clearly say, "We aren't in the business of selling tissue".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that's why they have been recorded negotiating a deal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As she said in the video ... costs to cover their expenses. Also, the ones trying to make it for profit were CMP. The doctor, who said she hadn't discussed money in years, did not know offhand what the cost is. When she threw out a figure she made off the top of her head, it was CMP who tried to increase the price so they could show Planned Parenthood was profiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's ridiculous for 2 reasons. One being that she should know what the cost of storage and transportation is, especially going into a business meeting. And she should have said that cost and told them to give nothing over that.
> 
> 2. As I pointed out earlier she didn't want to begin NEGOTIATING the "cost" and was clearly worrying about selling herself short. She implied that the cost would for transportation, shipping, etc...just like a good drug dealer carefully choosing their words not to implicate themselves
Click to expand...

 She doesn't necessarily need to know the costs -- she said it had been "years" since discussing such things. And your impression she was holding out negotiating to avoid lowballing doesn't hold up to her stated position that she didn't know what the costs would be. She was even asking what they normally pay because she clearly didn't know what the going rate is. And after she made up a number anyway, it was CMP trying to raise the amount, not her.

Face it, there's nothing there. at $75-$100, they're covering their expenses. Based on those [highly edited] videos, I'll be surprised if anything even comes of this.


----------



## koshergrl

"Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services talks about “less crunchy technique” for keeping body parts intact during a partial-birth abortion. When negotiating about fetal tissue, she says the price, “has to be big enough that it’s worthwhile for me,” at one point explaining “I want a Lamborghini.”
 Don t Want to Lowball Baby Parts Another Planned Parenthood Official on Tape National Review Online


----------



## koshergrl

"Gatter was nonchalant when suggesting she could ask surgeons to use certain abortion procedures that could keep the aborted baby “intact.” For instance, while a typical “suction” procedure would be insufficient, the TPAS (manual vacuum aspirator) option is “less crunchy,” requires less suction and would produce more “whole” specimens. She admitted using this procedure would violate their agreement with patients that they are totally upfront about the care they are getting, but said she wouldn’t “object” to asking her surgeons to do so anyway.
“So yeah, I’m not making a fuss about that.”

 I Want a Lamborghini Planned Parenthood Employee Laughs While Negotiating Sale of Fetal Body Parts - Cortney O Brien


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So explain exactly what part of the film is fraudulent? Explain how that works.
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where both of these doctors clearly say, "We aren't in the business of selling tissue".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that's why they have been recorded negotiating a deal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As she said in the video ... costs to cover their expenses. Also, the ones trying to make it for profit were CMP. The doctor, who said she hadn't discussed money in years, did not know offhand what the cost is. When she threw out a figure she made off the top of her head, it was CMP who tried to increase the price so they could show Planned Parenthood was profiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's ridiculous for 2 reasons. One being that she should know what the cost of storage and transportation is, especially going into a business meeting. And she should have said that cost and told them to give nothing over that.
> 
> 2. As I pointed out earlier she didn't want to begin NEGOTIATING the "cost" and was clearly worrying about selling herself short. She implied that the cost would for transportation, shipping, etc...just like a good drug dealer carefully choosing their words not to implicate themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She doesn't necessarily need to know the costs -- she said it had been "years" since discussing such things. And your impression she was holding out negotiating to avoid lowballing doesn't hold up to her stated position that she didn't know what the costs would be. She was even asking what they normally pay because she clearly didn't know what the going rate is. And after she made up a number anyway, it was CMP trying to raise the amount, not her.
> 
> Face it, there's nothing there. at $75-$100, they're covering their expenses. Based on those [highly edited] videos, I'll be surprised if anything even comes of this.
Click to expand...

Although the comment about wanting a new Lamborghini was partially in jest it was also partially not. There's no doubt dickering and bargaining was going on as in the latest video the PP doctor starts negotiations by asking for an opening offer.
No one does that unless they are haggling over a deal.


----------



## koshergrl

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that's why they have been recorded negotiating a deal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As she said in the video ... costs to cover their expenses. Also, the ones trying to make it for profit were CMP. The doctor, who said she hadn't discussed money in years, did not know offhand what the cost is. When she threw out a figure she made off the top of her head, it was CMP who tried to increase the price so they could show Planned Parenthood was profiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's ridiculous for 2 reasons. One being that she should know what the cost of storage and transportation is, especially going into a business meeting. And she should have said that cost and told them to give nothing over that.
> 
> 2. As I pointed out earlier she didn't want to begin NEGOTIATING the "cost" and was clearly worrying about selling herself short. She implied that the cost would for transportation, shipping, etc...just like a good drug dealer carefully choosing their words not to implicate themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She doesn't necessarily need to know the costs -- she said it had been "years" since discussing such things. And your impression she was holding out negotiating to avoid lowballing doesn't hold up to her stated position that she didn't know what the costs would be. She was even asking what they normally pay because she clearly didn't know what the going rate is. And after she made up a number anyway, it was CMP trying to raise the amount, not her.
> 
> Face it, there's nothing there. at $75-$100, they're covering their expenses. Based on those [highly edited] videos, I'll be surprised if anything even comes of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although the comment about wanting a new Lamborghini was partially in jest it was also partially not. There's no doubt dickering and bargaining was going on as in the latest video the PP doctor starts negotiations by asking for an opening offer.
> No one does that unless they are haggling over a deal.
Click to expand...

 
Not that there's any question about it, but you don't make a comment like that when you're talking expenses only.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So explain exactly what part of the film is fraudulent? Explain how that works.
> 
> I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part where both of these doctors clearly say, "We aren't in the business of selling tissue".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess that's why they have been recorded negotiating a deal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As she said in the video ... costs to cover their expenses. Also, the ones trying to make it for profit were CMP. The doctor, who said she hadn't discussed money in years, did not know offhand what the cost is. When she threw out a figure she made off the top of her head, it was CMP who tried to increase the price so they could show Planned Parenthood was profiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's ridiculous for 2 reasons. One being that she should know what the cost of storage and transportation is, especially going into a business meeting. And she should have said that cost and told them to give nothing over that.
> 
> 2. As I pointed out earlier she didn't want to begin NEGOTIATING the "cost" and was clearly worrying about selling herself short. She implied that the cost would for transportation, shipping, etc...just like a good drug dealer carefully choosing their words not to implicate themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She doesn't necessarily need to know the costs -- she said it had been "years" since discussing such things. And your impression she was holding out negotiating to avoid lowballing doesn't hold up to her stated position that she didn't know what the costs would be. She was even asking what they normally pay because she clearly didn't know what the going rate is. And after she made up a number anyway, it was CMP trying to raise the amount, not her.
> 
> Face it, there's nothing there. at $75-$100, they're covering their expenses. Based on those [highly edited] videos, I'll be surprised if anything even comes of this.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that it's not a lot of money, but remember she's not negotiating from a seat of power, since it's the law that she cannot accept more or face consequences if the other side were to point that out. But it's fair to say she was fishing, and I'd like to know what she'd say to a higher offer. And she did know the prices since she said they do it as low as 50, and she accepted double. Note, in the original it was said that the range was 30 to 50 dollars, this  offer was higher and was accepted


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thought we were done talking but yes, to bring forth, also a term we know as offspring, aka infant. Sorry it doesn't fit your English way of thinking, but I don't think the ancient latins really cared about the different terms we call our young.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, The Romans performed abortions.
> 
> The Romans and Greeks weren't much concerned with protecting the unborn, and when they did object to abortion it was often because the father didn't want to be deprived of a child that he felt entitled to.
> 
> The early philosophers also argued that a foetus did not become formed and begin to live until at least 40 days after conception for a male, and around 80 days for a female. The philosopher Aristotle wrote:
> 
> ...when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation.
> 
> Aristotle, Politics 7.16
> 
> 
> BBC - Ethics - Abortion Historical attitudes to abortion
Click to expand...


I don't see how this helps your point? Ancient people use to sacrifice their newborns to Baal, by burning them on an alter...for the hopes to receive more prosperity. I've always contended that abortion is not a new issue in humanity, in fact it pops up over and over again. And all for the same reason, for more prosperity, or for fiscal reasons, or whatever you want to call it to sound pretty. Wether it's for the good of the society, or the monetary benefit of the parent, it's not right to put prosperity up against the right to life


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that's why they have been recorded negotiating a deal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As she said in the video ... costs to cover their expenses. Also, the ones trying to make it for profit were CMP. The doctor, who said she hadn't discussed money in years, did not know offhand what the cost is. When she threw out a figure she made off the top of her head, it was CMP who tried to increase the price so they could show Planned Parenthood was profiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's ridiculous for 2 reasons. One being that she should know what the cost of storage and transportation is, especially going into a business meeting. And she should have said that cost and told them to give nothing over that.
> 
> 2. As I pointed out earlier she didn't want to begin NEGOTIATING the "cost" and was clearly worrying about selling herself short. She implied that the cost would for transportation, shipping, etc...just like a good drug dealer carefully choosing their words not to implicate themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She doesn't necessarily need to know the costs -- she said it had been "years" since discussing such things. And your impression she was holding out negotiating to avoid lowballing doesn't hold up to her stated position that she didn't know what the costs would be. She was even asking what they normally pay because she clearly didn't know what the going rate is. And after she made up a number anyway, it was CMP trying to raise the amount, not her.
> 
> Face it, there's nothing there. at $75-$100, they're covering their expenses. Based on those [highly edited] videos, I'll be surprised if anything even comes of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll admit that it's not a lot of money, but remember she's not negotiating from a seat of power, since it's the law that she cannot accept more or face consequences if the other side were to point that out. But it's fair to say she was fishing, and I'd like to know what she'd say to a higher offer. And she did know the prices since she said they do it as low as 50, and she accepted double. Note, in the original it was said that the range was 30 to 50 dollars, this  offer was higher and was accepted
Click to expand...

To note, the original video was a different person and it's highly plausible the two women from both videos had no knowledge what the other was saying. And again, it was CMP trying to raise the price, not PP.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> As she said in the video ... costs to cover their expenses. Also, the ones trying to make it for profit were CMP. The doctor, who said she hadn't discussed money in years, did not know offhand what the cost is. When she threw out a figure she made off the top of her head, it was CMP who tried to increase the price so they could show Planned Parenthood was profiting.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous for 2 reasons. One being that she should know what the cost of storage and transportation is, especially going into a business meeting. And she should have said that cost and told them to give nothing over that.
> 
> 2. As I pointed out earlier she didn't want to begin NEGOTIATING the "cost" and was clearly worrying about selling herself short. She implied that the cost would for transportation, shipping, etc...just like a good drug dealer carefully choosing their words not to implicate themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She doesn't necessarily need to know the costs -- she said it had been "years" since discussing such things. And your impression she was holding out negotiating to avoid lowballing doesn't hold up to her stated position that she didn't know what the costs would be. She was even asking what they normally pay because she clearly didn't know what the going rate is. And after she made up a number anyway, it was CMP trying to raise the amount, not her.
> 
> Face it, there's nothing there. at $75-$100, they're covering their expenses. Based on those [highly edited] videos, I'll be surprised if anything even comes of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll admit that it's not a lot of money, but remember she's not negotiating from a seat of power, since it's the law that she cannot accept more or face consequences if the other side were to point that out. But it's fair to say she was fishing, and I'd like to know what she'd say to a higher offer. And she did know the prices since she said they do it as low as 50, and she accepted double. Note, in the original it was said that the range was 30 to 50 dollars, this  offer was higher and was accepted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To note, the original video was a different person and it's highly plausible the two women from both videos had no knowledge what the other was saying. And again, it was CMP trying to raise the price, not PP.
Click to expand...

Ok but when dealing with just shipping and handling, it doesn't usually come out to a nice even number like that. Nor would it be that much of a difference place to place. And let's not forget, she accepted the higher offer, after her own, quite happily


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> I don't see how this helps your point? Ancient people use to sacrifice their newborns to Baal, by burning them on an alter...for the hopes to receive more prosperity.



Or more than likely, because there wasn't enough food to go around they had to cull the population... although that all really sounds more like propaganda than any historical evidence that happened.  This comes from that same book that has Talking Snakes and Giants in it. 



sakinago said:


> I've always contended that abortion is not a new issue in humanity, in fact it pops up over and over again. And all for the same reason, for more prosperity, or for fiscal reasons, or whatever you want to call it to sound pretty. Wether it's for the good of the society, or the monetary benefit of the parent, it's not right to put prosperity up against the right to life



And when you guys support Welfare without Apology, I'll take you seriously on the "Right to Life".


----------



## BlindBoo

Sun Devil 92 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you not only condone illegal activities but
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already covered this - she is negotiating compensation for the donations and compensation is illegal for profit (a notion backed by here rather insensitive comments).  Further it is illegal to change the procedure for the collection of said sample and she DIRECTLY points that out but then goes right on to say that she has no problem asking the doctor to do exactly that.  Have you even bothered to watch the damn video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video doesn't prove Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it brings it to the light where it will be investigated.
> 
> You are not this dense blind – you are doing this on purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.....does not need to be illegal.....just sound bad.
Click to expand...


To qualify for the Fauxrage of the Year you are correct.  Doesn't need to be illegal for you guys to call it illegal trafficking in human body parts to gin up support for yet another partisan witch hunt.

But like the boy who cried wolf one to many times, look like the well has run dry for Faux's outrage machine.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't feed 4 people on 650.00 a month then there is something wrong with you. I spend less then that and don't have SNAP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you really think you can feed a family of four on $17.00 a day?  Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Medicaid sucks so bad. Why did Obamacare force everyone to sign up for benefits??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which wasn't the point I was arguing. But that's okay, we know you're "Special".
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> All corporations and Gov jobs offer maternity leave and FMLA (paid). Even fast good chains such as McDonalds and Starbucks offer paid leave. Only way you wouldn't qualify is if your probationary period was not over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Let's look at that claim.
> 
> The sad state of benefits for new moms on the job - The Washington Post
> 
> In 2008, 16 percent of those companies that offer paid maternity leave promised to fully pay women their prior salaries while they were out; in 2014, that number is just 9 percent.
Click to expand...

Yes. Less than 17.00 actually.

All free from WIC:

Bread/tortillas
Eggs/ cheese/ milk
Rice/beans/Tofu
Fresh veggies and fruit
Peanut butter
Iron rich cereal (boxed and hot)

To illustrate this point my shopping trip for Last Sunday Lunch and dinner.

Sprouts

Sales in last weeks ad...

12 ears of corn for 2.00 (would be free  with WIC card)

Head of lettuce .99 ( would be free with WIC card)

Bunches of radishes,celery and green onions 2/1.00 (would be free withWIC card)

4 apple wood island marinated kabobs 3.99 lb. total of purchase $7.06

Dollar Tree ( right next door)

2 pks personal pan pizza crust 2.00
Jar Pizza Sauce 1.00
Pkg Pepperoni 1.00
Cheese ( free with WIC card)
Dressing for salad 1.00

Total for three meals ( breakfast lunch and dinner) plus extra food to add to another meal.

Total. $12.06

Didn't add breakfast because all breakfast items free from WIC

You can thank me later.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

BlindBoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.
> 
> Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.
> 
> 
> 
> We already covered this - she is negotiating compensation for the donations and compensation is illegal for profit (a notion backed by here rather insensitive comments).  Further it is illegal to change the procedure for the collection of said sample and she DIRECTLY points that out but then goes right on to say that she has no problem asking the doctor to do exactly that.  Have you even bothered to watch the damn video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video doesn't prove Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it brings it to the light where it will be investigated.
> 
> You are not this dense blind – you are doing this on purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.....does not need to be illegal.....just sound bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To qualify for the Fauxrage of the Year you are correct.  Doesn't need to be illegal for you guys to call it illegal trafficking in human body parts to gin up support for yet another partisan witch hunt.
> 
> But like the boy who cried wolf one to many times, look like the well has run dry for Faux's outrage machine.
Click to expand...


Don't lump me in with the Fauxers.  Shove it.

I'm simply pointing out the fact......

All it has to do is look bad........


----------



## BlindBoo

Sun Devil 92 said:


> All it has to do is look bad.



That's exactly how Fauxrage works, by getting the folks all riled up by the appearance, the fact that no law was broken gets ignored.  I don't think it's going to fool everyone this time and Congress will not be able to shut down PP, which is the obvious goal.


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> As she said in the video ... costs to cover their expenses. Also, the ones trying to make it for profit were CMP. The doctor, who said she hadn't discussed money in years, did not know offhand what the cost is. When she threw out a figure she made off the top of her head, it was CMP who tried to increase the price so they could show Planned Parenthood was profiting.
> 
> 
> 
> That's ridiculous for 2 reasons. One being that she should know what the cost of storage and transportation is, especially going into a business meeting. And she should have said that cost and told them to give nothing over that.
> 
> 2. As I pointed out earlier she didn't want to begin NEGOTIATING the "cost" and was clearly worrying about selling herself short. She implied that the cost would for transportation, shipping, etc...just like a good drug dealer carefully choosing their words not to implicate themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She doesn't necessarily need to know the costs -- she said it had been "years" since discussing such things. And your impression she was holding out negotiating to avoid lowballing doesn't hold up to her stated position that she didn't know what the costs would be. She was even asking what they normally pay because she clearly didn't know what the going rate is. And after she made up a number anyway, it was CMP trying to raise the amount, not her.
> 
> Face it, there's nothing there. at $75-$100, they're covering their expenses. Based on those [highly edited] videos, I'll be surprised if anything even comes of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although the comment about wanting a new Lamborghini was partially in jest it was also partially not. There's no doubt dickering and bargaining was going on as in the latest video the PP doctor starts negotiations by asking for an opening offer.
> No one does that unless they are haggling over a deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that there's any question about it, but you don't make a comment like that when you're talking expenses only.
Click to expand...

You do if you're not certain how much the expenses are.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlindBoo said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it has to do is look bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly how Fauxrage works, by getting the folks all riled up by the appearance, the fact that no law was broken gets ignored.  I don't think it's going to fool everyone this time and Congress will not be able to shut down PP, which is the obvious goal.
Click to expand...

Laws have already been broken and freely admitted to on video tape (like for instance aborting in such a way to facilitate the removal of vital organs).
The problem now is finding a way to force this administration
to enforce the law, something it just doesn't do when it doesn't want to.
The politicization of our justice system absolutely dwarfs what we've ever seen before and it proves that when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped around Barry Hussein Obama.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that's why they have been recorded negotiating a deal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As she said in the video ... costs to cover their expenses. Also, the ones trying to make it for profit were CMP. The doctor, who said she hadn't discussed money in years, did not know offhand what the cost is. When she threw out a figure she made off the top of her head, it was CMP who tried to increase the price so they could show Planned Parenthood was profiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's ridiculous for 2 reasons. One being that she should know what the cost of storage and transportation is, especially going into a business meeting. And she should have said that cost and told them to give nothing over that.
> 
> 2. As I pointed out earlier she didn't want to begin NEGOTIATING the "cost" and was clearly worrying about selling herself short. She implied that the cost would for transportation, shipping, etc...just like a good drug dealer carefully choosing their words not to implicate themselves
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She doesn't necessarily need to know the costs -- she said it had been "years" since discussing such things. And your impression she was holding out negotiating to avoid lowballing doesn't hold up to her stated position that she didn't know what the costs would be. She was even asking what they normally pay because she clearly didn't know what the going rate is. And after she made up a number anyway, it was CMP trying to raise the amount, not her.
> 
> Face it, there's nothing there. at $75-$100, they're covering their expenses. Based on those [highly edited] videos, I'll be surprised if anything even comes of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll admit that it's not a lot of money, but remember she's not negotiating from a seat of power, since it's the law that she cannot accept more or face consequences if the other side were to point that out. But it's fair to say she was fishing, and I'd like to know what she'd say to a higher offer. And she did know the prices since she said they do it as low as 50, and she accepted double. Note, in the original it was said that the range was 30 to 50 dollars, this  offer was higher and was accepted
Click to expand...

I don't agree. The tissue she has available is quite valuable. Someone posted a link to a company purportedly selling fetal tissue for as much as $24K. Why on Earth would anyone risk going to jail over $100, minus expenses, for something worth tens of thousands of dollars? Again, seems to me she don't know what to charge because it's not something she does; and didn't want to throw out a number that wouldn't even cover expenses.


----------



## Faun

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it has to do is look bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly how Fauxrage works, by getting the folks all riled up by the appearance, the fact that no law was broken gets ignored.  I don't think it's going to fool everyone this time and Congress will not be able to shut down PP, which is the obvious goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws have already been broken and freely admitted to on video tape (like for instance aborting in such a way to facilitate the removal of vital organs).
> The problem now is finding a way to force this administration
> to enforce the law, something it just doesn't do when it doesn't want to.
> The politicization of our justice system absolutely dwarfs what we've ever seen before and it proves that when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped around Barry Hussein Obama.
Click to expand...

Why don't you first cite the specific laws you think were broken? Someone posted one of them about not selling fetal tissue for profit; which to me, doesn't appear to have been violated. What law dictates the expulsion process?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Faun said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it has to do is look bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly how Fauxrage works, by getting the folks all riled up by the appearance, the fact that no law was broken gets ignored.  I don't think it's going to fool everyone this time and Congress will not be able to shut down PP, which is the obvious goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws have already been broken and freely admitted to on video tape (like for instance aborting in such a way to facilitate the removal of vital organs).
> The problem now is finding a way to force this administration
> to enforce the law, something it just doesn't do when it doesn't want to.
> The politicization of our justice system absolutely dwarfs what we've ever seen before and it proves that when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped around Barry Hussein Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you first cite the specific laws you think were broken? Someone posted one of them about not selling fetal tissue for profit; which to me, doesn't appear to have been violated. What law dictates the expulsion process?
Click to expand...

_Specifically?_ How about the 1993 National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act? Planned Parenthood Altering Abortion Procedures to Obtain Organs National Review Online

You have on video tape two separate high ranking Planned Parenthood officials discussing how they carefully abort making sure the highly prized internal organs aren't harmed.


----------



## sakinago

Don't know why that would be a conditional consideration, since one deals with standard of living and the other is life itself. But sure lets talk about welfare. Forget about the abuse of it on the part of citizens,(which needs to be part of the conversation) let's talk about the abuse coming from govt. an immense amount of  taxpayer money goes into welfare, then you pay for a gigantic bureaucracy, that then doles out breadcrumbs to the needy. I'm sure you would agree that not enough is given out to the needy, correct? And in this day and age isn't it possible that we can cut out the bureaucracy and be more efficient at getting the money to the people, and in turn giving them more money? And what is the point of welfare, is it dependence? And if not then why are more and more people becoming dependent on it under this administration supposedly for the little guy? Remember, 93 million have dropped out of the workforce, operant word being workforce, not people retiring. And look up the numbers for the increase in food stamps, pretty damning for a party that's trying to champion the lower and middle class


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how this helps your point? Ancient people use to sacrifice their newborns to Baal, by burning them on an alter...for the hopes to receive more prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or more than likely, because there wasn't enough food to go around they had to cull the population... although that all really sounds more like propaganda than any historical evidence that happened.  This comes from that same book that has Talking Snakes and Giants in it.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always contended that abortion is not a new issue in humanity, in fact it pops up over and over again. And all for the same reason, for more prosperity, or for fiscal reasons, or whatever you want to call it to sound pretty. Wether it's for the good of the society, or the monetary benefit of the parent, it's not right to put prosperity up against the right to life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you guys support Welfare without Apology, I'll take you seriously on the "Right to Life".
Click to expand...

And I also suspect you are for the need  for culling the population, after all there almost 8 billion on the planet


----------



## Faun

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All it has to do is look bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly how Fauxrage works, by getting the folks all riled up by the appearance, the fact that no law was broken gets ignored.  I don't think it's going to fool everyone this time and Congress will not be able to shut down PP, which is the obvious goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laws have already been broken and freely admitted to on video tape (like for instance aborting in such a way to facilitate the removal of vital organs).
> The problem now is finding a way to force this administration
> to enforce the law, something it just doesn't do when it doesn't want to.
> The politicization of our justice system absolutely dwarfs what we've ever seen before and it proves that when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped around Barry Hussein Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you first cite the specific laws you think were broken? Someone posted one of them about not selling fetal tissue for profit; which to me, doesn't appear to have been violated. What law dictates the expulsion process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Specifically?_ How about the 1993 National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act? Planned Parenthood Altering Abortion Procedures to Obtain Organs National Review Online
> 
> You have on video tape two separate high ranking Planned Parenthood officials discussing how they carefully abort making sure the highly prized internal organs aren't harmed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that. Based on this ...

_no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue;_​ 
... it is possible Planned Parenthood violated the law. That should be investigated and remains to be seen.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Don't know why that would be a conditional consideration, since one deals with standard of living and the other is life itself. But sure lets talk about welfare. Forget about the abuse of it on the part of citizens,(which needs to be part of the conversation) let's talk about the abuse coming from govt. an immense amount of  taxpayer money goes into welfare, then you pay for a gigantic bureaucracy, that then doles out breadcrumbs to the needy. I'm sure you would agree that not enough is given out to the needy, correct? And in this day and age isn't it possible that we can cut out the bureaucracy and be more efficient at getting the money to the people, and in turn giving them more money? And what is the point of welfare, is it dependence? And if not then why are more and more people becoming dependent on it under this administration supposedly for the little guy? Remember, 93 million have dropped out of the workforce, operant word being workforce, not people retiring. And look up the numbers for the increase in food stamps, pretty damning for a party that's trying to champion the lower and middle class


 sorry in advance for being off topic ... but ...... 93 million people have not dropped out of the workforce.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know why that would be a conditional consideration, since one deals with standard of living and the other is life itself. But sure lets talk about welfare. Forget about the abuse of it on the part of citizens,(which needs to be part of the conversation) let's talk about the abuse coming from govt. an immense amount of  taxpayer money goes into welfare, then you pay for a gigantic bureaucracy, that then doles out breadcrumbs to the needy. I'm sure you would agree that not enough is given out to the needy, correct? And in this day and age isn't it possible that we can cut out the bureaucracy and be more efficient at getting the money to the people, and in turn giving them more money? And what is the point of welfare, is it dependence? And if not then why are more and more people becoming dependent on it under this administration supposedly for the little guy? Remember, 93 million have dropped out of the workforce, operant word being workforce, not people retiring. And look up the numbers for the increase in food stamps, pretty damning for a party that's trying to champion the lower and middle class
> 
> 
> 
> sorry in advance for being off topic ... but ...... 93 million people have not dropped out of the workforce.
Click to expand...

9.5 Million People Have Left the Workforce Under Obama

Report More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force CBS DC

Theres more articles I can cite from different sources. And I know it's off topic but I was responding to joeb and his assertion that he won't listen to a life argument until we back welfare to his satisfaction.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Yes. Less than 17.00 actually.
> 
> All free from WIC:
> 
> Bread/tortillas
> Eggs/ cheese/ milk
> Rice/beans/Tofu
> Fresh veggies and fruit
> Peanut butter
> Iron rich cereal (boxed and hot)
> 
> To illustrate this point my shopping trip for Last Sunday Lunch and dinner.



We weren't talking about WIC, we were talking about SNAP. Way to move the goal-posts.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Don't know why that would be a conditional consideration, since one deals with standard of living and the other is life itself. But sure lets talk about welfare. Forget about the abuse of it on the part of citizens,(which needs to be part of the conversation) let's talk about the abuse coming from govt. an immense amount of taxpayer money goes into welfare, then you pay for a gigantic bureaucracy, that then doles out breadcrumbs to the needy.



Actually, Corky, got to stop you right here because again, you are a retard.  






Check it out, Low Income Assistance is only 5.3% of the Federal Budget. 

Meanwhile, "White People" entitlements of Social Security and Medicare make up 33% of the budget.  

So, no we aren't lavishing a bunch of money on poor people, contrary to what people like you want to think.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> And I also suspect you are for the need for culling the population, after all there almost 8 billion on the planet



I think we are already doing what we need to do control the world's population growth.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Theres more articles I can cite from different sources. And I know it's off topic but I was responding to joeb and his assertion that he won't listen to a life argument until we back welfare to his satisfaction.



Yes, unfortunately, your claims are all kind of retarded.  

We have massive amounts of people 'leaving the workforce' because they are aging out of it, not because Obama didn't fix Bush's mess fast enough. 

Now, we are going to at some point have to rethink our economic model because the current one doesn't work.


----------



## aris2chat

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wait until Walker is elected President. He's already eliminated all state funding for Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In the U.S., the use of fetal tissue is regulated by law to prevent abuse. For example, women who donate their aborted fetuses for research are required to give their free and informed consent, and must not be asked to donate until after they have already decided to have an abortion. Fears that women are being coerced into abortions solely to obtain fetal tissue are irrational and unfounded.
> 
> In Canada, no laws exist at present on the handling and use of fetal tissue (a law is currently on the drawing board), but strict ethical guidelines are enforced by several independent research councils. Research funding is provided only to individuals and institutions that certify compliance with the guidelines. These cover much the same ground as the U.S. laws, including the requirement for informed consent from women without interfering with their abortion decision, and the obtainment of tissue through non-commercial means.
> 
> The only allegation currently under investigation by a U.S. Congressional committee is that two biomedical companies, acting as third parties in the collection of fetal tissue, are charging inflated handling fees to research institutions -- more than what is needed to cover costs. Let there be no doubt as to the unanimous pro-choice position on this -- if any type of illegal activity is happening -- and nothing has been proved as yet -- let's root it out and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. [Ed note: In August 2001, these two companies and a Kansas abortion clinic were cleared of any wrongdoing, after an FBI investigation concluded no illegal activities had occurred].
> 
> As for the vicious gossip about doctors killing babies to "harvest" their organs, such hearsay is more suited to publication in the Weekly World News. These rumours originate from a single, anonymous source -- "Kelly," who claims to be a former worker at an organ donation company in Maryland. The scenes she describes constitute criminal behaviour, and a gross violation of medical ethics. If her claims are true, why is she hiding behind a pseudonym, instead of helping bring the perpetrators to justice? Why did she go to Life Dynamics with her "evidence", instead of the police? These stories and their source are simply not credible, and abortion providers are outraged by even the suggestion of such barbaric practices. [Ed note: In March 2000, in front of a Congressional committee, the stories of "Kelly" and Life Dynamics were completely discredited—"Kelly" was actually Lawrence Dean Alberty, a paid spy for Life Dynamics, and he and LDI apparently fabricated much of the "evidence".]"
> 
> More vicious lies from the Irish Lassie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video says otherwise, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The producers of the video, like you, are lying pieces of shit.  It is not illegal to use fetal tissue in medical research.  Since the video was taken a year ago and no one has been arrested to charged, pretty clear who is the dumbass here, Lassie.
Click to expand...


It is not illegal to donate tissue or body parts, including aborted fetus, for medical research.  The cost to remove, preserve, or transport can be chaged in the arrangment.
the $100 is not for the sale but the costs for the expenses of the tissue.
The transaction being discussed is not illegal, it is not an actual "sale" but the costs for the expenses

Once the fetal tissue is removed it is not longer up to the mother what happens to the tissue.  It up to the clinc/hospital to dispose or donate for research.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Less than 17.00 actually.
> 
> All free from WIC:
> 
> Bread/tortillas
> Eggs/ cheese/ milk
> Rice/beans/Tofu
> Fresh veggies and fruit
> Peanut butter
> Iron rich cereal (boxed and hot)
> 
> To illustrate this point my shopping trip for Last Sunday Lunch and dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We weren't talking about WIC, we were talking about SNAP. Way to move the goal-posts.
Click to expand...


Delete WIC.  Same shopping trip... Buy just enough corn and veggies for one days meals.

Still under 17.00 at 16.23 

BTW

I always included WIC since all low income women with children 5 and under qualify. Said so from the beginning. But you love to play word games so...

But

You are still wrong.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Delete WIC. Same shopping trip... Buy just enough corn and veggies for one days meals.
> 
> Still under 17.00 at 16.23
> 
> BTW
> 
> I always included WIC since all low income women with children 5 and under qualify. Said so from the beginning. But you love to play word games so...
> 
> But
> 
> You are still wrong.



I was talking about SNAP, not WIC.  

Your claim was that you could serve three meals a day to a family of four for $17.00.  Yeah, I guess if they don't eat meat or proteins, that would work.  

"Hey, we gave you some corn! You should be happy to have more kids you can't afford. Hey, why are you going to that abortion clinic?  Abortion makes Baby Jesus cry!!!"


----------



## aris2chat

>>The “sale” of organs, both adult and fetal, for transplantation is indeed illegal, but donation of tissue — both from aborted fetuses and from adults — is not. And payment for “reasonable” costs is also allowed under the law.

The video itself highlights a portion of title 42 of the U.S. code, which reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce.” The law does include fetal tissue in its definitions. It says that the term “valuable consideration” doesn’t include “reasonable payments” for removal, transportation, preservation and other associated costs.<<

>>The American Medical Association echoes this in its ethical guidelines on the issue: “Fetal tissue is not provided in exchange for financial remuneration above that which is necessary to cover reasonable expenses.<<

Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video


----------



## BlueGin

aris2chat said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wait until Walker is elected President. He's already eliminated all state funding for Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In the U.S., the use of fetal tissue is regulated by law to prevent abuse. For example, women who donate their aborted fetuses for research are required to give their free and informed consent, and must not be asked to donate until after they have already decided to have an abortion. Fears that women are being coerced into abortions solely to obtain fetal tissue are irrational and unfounded.
> 
> In Canada, no laws exist at present on the handling and use of fetal tissue (a law is currently on the drawing board), but strict ethical guidelines are enforced by several independent research councils. Research funding is provided only to individuals and institutions that certify compliance with the guidelines. These cover much the same ground as the U.S. laws, including the requirement for informed consent from women without interfering with their abortion decision, and the obtainment of tissue through non-commercial means.
> 
> The only allegation currently under investigation by a U.S. Congressional committee is that two biomedical companies, acting as third parties in the collection of fetal tissue, are charging inflated handling fees to research institutions -- more than what is needed to cover costs. Let there be no doubt as to the unanimous pro-choice position on this -- if any type of illegal activity is happening -- and nothing has been proved as yet -- let's root it out and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. [Ed note: In August 2001, these two companies and a Kansas abortion clinic were cleared of any wrongdoing, after an FBI investigation concluded no illegal activities had occurred].
> 
> As for the vicious gossip about doctors killing babies to "harvest" their organs, such hearsay is more suited to publication in the Weekly World News. These rumours originate from a single, anonymous source -- "Kelly," who claims to be a former worker at an organ donation company in Maryland. The scenes she describes constitute criminal behaviour, and a gross violation of medical ethics. If her claims are true, why is she hiding behind a pseudonym, instead of helping bring the perpetrators to justice? Why did she go to Life Dynamics with her "evidence", instead of the police? These stories and their source are simply not credible, and abortion providers are outraged by even the suggestion of such barbaric practices. [Ed note: In March 2000, in front of a Congressional committee, the stories of "Kelly" and Life Dynamics were completely discredited—"Kelly" was actually Lawrence Dean Alberty, a paid spy for Life Dynamics, and he and LDI apparently fabricated much of the "evidence".]"
> 
> More vicious lies from the Irish Lassie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video says otherwise, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The producers of the video, like you, are lying pieces of shit.  It is not illegal to use fetal tissue in medical research.  Since the video was taken a year ago and no one has been arrested to charged, pretty clear who is the dumbass here, Lassie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to donate tissue or body parts, including aborted fetus, for medical research.  The cost to remove, preserve, or transport can be chaged in the arrangment.
> the $100 is not for the sale but the costs for the expenses of the tissue.
> The transaction being discussed is not illegal, it is not an actual "sale" but the costs for the expenses
> 
> Once the fetal tissue is removed it is not longer up to the mother what happens to the tissue.  It up to the clinc/hospital to dispose or donate for research.
Click to expand...

It is illegal to alter procedures to harvest organs. It is also illegal to donate tissue without consent from the patient.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delete WIC. Same shopping trip... Buy just enough corn and veggies for one days meals.
> 
> Still under 17.00 at 16.23
> 
> BTW
> 
> I always included WIC since all low income women with children 5 and under qualify. Said so from the beginning. But you love to play word games so...
> 
> But
> 
> You are still wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about SNAP, not WIC.
> 
> Your claim was that you could serve three meals a day to a family of four for $17.00.  Yeah, I guess if they don't eat meat or proteins, that would work.
> 
> "Hey, we gave you some corn! You should be happy to have more kids you can't afford. Hey, why are you going to that abortion clinic?  Abortion makes Baby Jesus cry!!!"
Click to expand...


So... skip pizza. Buy oatmeal ,honey, bread, peanut butter and jelly. Or hot dogs and buns (all sold at DT).

Still under 17.00.

I can create meals under 17.00 from store ads all day long. Face it ... You are full of crap.

Chicken kabobs were also listed btw... Pretty sure that is protein.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> So... skip pizza. Buy oatmeal ,honey, bread, peanut butter and jelly. Or hot dogs and buns (all sold at DT).
> 
> Still under 17.00.
> 
> I can create meals under 17.00 from store ads all day long. Face it ... You are full of crap.



Yeah. Fuck those poor people, they can eat oatmeal!!!  How dare they want to eat real meat. 

Real meat is for WHITE PEOPLE!!!! 

And don't you dare think about going to planned parenthood to get an abortion!!!! 

Boy, you wingnuts have no idea how fucked up you sound, do you?


----------



## JoeB131

Again- we are talking about $17.00 a day for a family of four.  That works out to $1.41 per person per meal.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Delete WIC. Same shopping trip... Buy just enough corn and veggies for one days meals.
> 
> Still under 17.00 at 16.23
> 
> BTW
> 
> I always included WIC since all low income women with children 5 and under qualify. Said so from the beginning. But you love to play word games so...
> 
> But
> 
> You are still wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about SNAP, not WIC.
> 
> Your claim was that you could serve three meals a day to a family of four for $17.00.  Yeah, I guess if they don't eat meat or proteins, that would work.
> 
> "Hey, we gave you some corn! You should be happy to have more kids you can't afford. Hey, why are you going to that abortion clinic?  Abortion makes Baby Jesus cry!!!"
Click to expand...


Of course you want to ignore WIC. It doesn't fit in your fake scenario. Keep in mind that kids over 5 also qualify for free breakfast and lunch at school.

And during the summer at parks and recreation programs, Children's choice programs Etc...

So really. They would only rely on mom for dinner.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> So... skip pizza. Buy oatmeal ,honey, bread, peanut butter and jelly. Or hot dogs and buns (all sold at DT).
> 
> Still under 17.00.
> 
> I can create meals under 17.00 from store ads all day long. Face it ... You are full of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Fuck those poor people, they can eat oatmeal!!!  How dare they want to eat real meat.
> 
> Real meat is for WHITE PEOPLE!!!!
> 
> And don't you dare think about going to planned parenthood to get an abortion!!!!
> 
> Boy, you wingnuts have no idea how fucked up you sound, do you?
Click to expand...


The Lib WIC program lists oatmeal as an approved item.  Take it up with them.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Of course you want to ignore WIC. It doesn't fit in your fake scenario. Keep in mind that kids over 5 also qualify for free breakfast and lunch at school.
> 
> And during the summer at parks and recreation programs, Children's choice programs Etc...
> 
> So really. They would only rely on mom for dinner.



So they get five meals out of 21 a week (those little bastards better not get any snacks, dammit!!!) and you think "Problem solved"? 

So why all this hostility towards poor people?


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> Again- we are talking about $17.00 a day for a family of four.  That works out to $1.41 per person per meal.


Libs want to crank out the entitlement programs... And then deny low income people get them and use them.

You are still wrong. But keep whining.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you want to ignore WIC. It doesn't fit in your fake scenario. Keep in mind that kids over 5 also qualify for free breakfast and lunch at school.
> 
> And during the summer at parks and recreation programs, Children's choice programs Etc...
> 
> So really. They would only rely on mom for dinner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they get five meals out of 21 a week (those little bastards better not get any snacks, dammit!!!) and you think "Problem solved"?
> 
> So why all this hostility towards poor people?
Click to expand...


Try 10. Leaving mom extra SNAP money for the weekend.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again- we are talking about $17.00 a day for a family of four.  That works out to $1.41 per person per meal.
> 
> 
> 
> Libs want to crank out the entitlement programs... And then deny low income people get them and use them.
> 
> You are still wrong. But keep whining.
Click to expand...


Actually, I think most libs would be happier if everyone had a remunerative job that put food on the table. 

I'd be all for a federal jobs program that employed every able bodied American at a living wage. You know, like the Europeans do.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Try 10. Leaving mom extra SNAP money for the weekend.



Yeah, she might be able to buy a whole hot dog.


----------



## JoeB131

You know, with all your hostility towards poor people, you'd think you'd be thrilled they were having abortions.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know why that would be a conditional consideration, since one deals with standard of living and the other is life itself. But sure lets talk about welfare. Forget about the abuse of it on the part of citizens,(which needs to be part of the conversation) let's talk about the abuse coming from govt. an immense amount of  taxpayer money goes into welfare, then you pay for a gigantic bureaucracy, that then doles out breadcrumbs to the needy. I'm sure you would agree that not enough is given out to the needy, correct? And in this day and age isn't it possible that we can cut out the bureaucracy and be more efficient at getting the money to the people, and in turn giving them more money? And what is the point of welfare, is it dependence? And if not then why are more and more people becoming dependent on it under this administration supposedly for the little guy? Remember, 93 million have dropped out of the workforce, operant word being workforce, not people retiring. And look up the numbers for the increase in food stamps, pretty damning for a party that's trying to champion the lower and middle class
> 
> 
> 
> sorry in advance for being off topic ... but ...... 93 million people have not dropped out of the workforce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 9.5 Million People Have Left the Workforce Under Obama
> 
> Report More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force CBS DC
> 
> Theres more articles I can cite from different sources. And I know it's off topic but I was responding to joeb and his assertion that he won't listen to a life argument until we back welfare to his satisfaction.
Click to expand...

93 million people who are not in the labor force did not "drop out" of the labor force. That's the part you got wrong. Most were not in it to begin with and 87 million of them don't want to work.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try 10. Leaving mom extra SNAP money for the weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, she might be able to buy a whole hot dog.
Click to expand...


Uh oh...


Your argument is screwed this week. Lots of buy one get one deals and 2/1.00 deals on proteins.

Bacon ( buy one get two)
Sausage Brats or Italian (3.99 pk of 5)
Tuna ( 2/1.00)
Ground Turkey (2.77 a pkg)
Chicken kabobs ( 3.99 lb)
Steak ( buy one get one)
Ground Beef
Shrimp (5.99 lb)
Eggs (2.99 18 pk)


Lots of fruit and veggies for 89/99 cents a carton/bag/ lb.

Pears
Strawberries
Black raspberries
Apples
Oranges

1.00 bread
.75 Spaghetti
1.00 pasta sauce
2/1.00 Mac n cheese.
Cheerios 1.49

Sale on Frozen Spinach 1.00
Canned corn .69
Fresh broccoli and bell peppers 99 cents a lb.
Lettuce .99
Green onions,radishes 2/1.00

Milk 1.99
Almond milk 1.69 ( plus .75 coupon) = .94

Plus several stores will price match all ads.

Better luck next week.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sun Devil 92 said:


> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.


 
Do you mind if I ask WHY you don't think any laws were broken?  The videos seem pretty clear to me.


----------



## Bonzi

They need to be audited. Among other things....


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
Click to expand...

 
It's also illegal to sell human body parts.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sun Devil 92 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So this is something they are doing ?
Click to expand...

 
Well, according to what their officials say on the video, yes.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BlindBoo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people should be closed down and locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
Click to expand...

 
Oh, yeah, THAT'S the big concern here.

Can you even SPELL the word "priorities"?


----------



## Cecilie1200

BlindBoo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you not only condone illegal activities but
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.
Click to expand...

 
You might want to check out the definition of "donate".  FYI, one doesn't acquire sports cars by "donating" things.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Dragonlady said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people should be closed down and locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Amazing that they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera from a MAJOR institution and you want to prosecute those that are doing the taping because it might put that institution in a bad light.
> 
> People like you make me sick and they are the core problem with the laws like the one you cite – you not only condone illegal activities but you want to ensure that they CANNOT BE EXPOSED AS WELL.  IOW, you back over corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should be prosecuted for fraud and defamation because they cut the footage from the interview to make it appear that the doctor was talking about selling fetal body parts when she was talking about tissue donation.
> 
> The film, as released, is a total fraud and has been exposed as such.
Click to expand...

 
I searched this post in vain, but saw absolutely no evidence of the assertions you make so definitely.  I shall assume that they are coming in a follow-up post, and look forward eagerly to seeing this footage you claim was cut and can mitigate the damning footage we've seen to render it innocuous.  I am also very interested to see the citation of the brilliant and courageous investigative individual who "exposed" the film as a "total fraud".

Thank you in advance for your diligent efforts in re: substantiation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sun Devil 92 said:


> It's all about optics.
> 
> Only the hard core believers are going to back PP on this one.
> 
> They lost more stock on this one....fraudlent or not.
> 
> Scares me that you can't have dinner and not wind up on YouTube.


 
You can, provided you don't discuss illegal activities over your food.  I cannot count the number of times I've had dinner and discussed perfect ordinary, legal topics without winding up on YouTube.  It's really quite easy to do.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BlindBoo said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you not only condone illegal activities but
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already covered this - she is negotiating compensation for the donations and compensation is illegal for profit (a notion backed by here rather insensitive comments).  Further it is illegal to change the procedure for the collection of said sample and she DIRECTLY points that out but then goes right on to say that she has no problem asking the doctor to do exactly that.  Have you even bothered to watch the damn video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video doesn't prove Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal.
Click to expand...

 
In what parallel universe?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Faun said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> 
> 
> To which law do you refer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that she specifically states it is illegal in the video but is not averse to making the suggestion to the doctor, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not know the specific law being violated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 42 U.S. Code 289g 2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue US Law LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> (a) Purchase of tissue
> It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for *valuable consideration* if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
> 
> It is illegal to sell fetal tissue for profit.  It sounds really really bad when you state you need a new lambo at the end of the financial discussion.  i do not understand why she was so idiotic anyway - who negotiate a HIGHER price for themselves - that should have warned her to end the conversation there.  Not only possibly negotiating illegal deals but also an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A) that law has absolutely jack shit to do with @koshergirl's complaint that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. That is the law I asked for.
> 
> B) Planned Parenthood was not acquiring valuable consideration, paying the women having abortions, or donating the organs to their relatives. So by that measure, they were not in violation of the law you posted.
Click to expand...

 
Yeah, you run with that.


----------



## koshergrl

The law was already linked somewhere.
And I didn't complain that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. The reality is that both the doctors talked about CHANGING the procedure in order to FACILITATE organ harvest. And THAT is against the law. You can't change a procedure for the sake of selling tissue or for any purpose except safety.

And the procedure they were choosing to change to was partial birth abortion...which is illegal.


----------



## koshergrl

Nocatola said that they were *ok* as long as they didn't PLAN to change the procedure, but just went in and did it...but the thing is, the fact that she then admitted that she looked down at the patient admitting sheet and picked out the ones that would get the altered procedure (based on fetal age) for the purpose of organ harvest means that yup, they PLAN to engage in illegal procedures for the sake of selling tissue.


----------



## BlindBoo

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Laws have already been broken and freely admitted to on video tape (like for instance aborting in such a way to facilitate the removal of vital organs).
> The problem now is finding a way to force this administration



If that were true there would already have been charges file in the local jurisdictions where the alleged crimes took place.  They know they don't have a case, that's why they are desperately appealing to emotion......


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about optics.
> 
> Only the hard core believers are going to back PP on this one.
> 
> They lost more stock on this one....fraudlent or not.
> 
> Scares me that you can't have dinner and not wind up on YouTube.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can, provided you don't discuss illegal activities over your food.  I cannot count the number of times I've had dinner and discussed perfect ordinary, legal topics without winding up on YouTube.  It's really quite easy to do.
Click to expand...


Sure, as long as you don't have a group that is essentially stalking you, watching you all the time.

Such a group would only stalk you if they were looking to ensnare you in some kind of controversey.

My guess is that there wasn't a lot of thought given to the legality of the discussed subject.....it sounds BAD.

Whether or not I like PP, it bothers me that people would be sitting close to them at dinner and monitor  their conversations.

Isn't what happened (the videoing) illegal ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you not only condone illegal activities but
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already covered this - she is negotiating compensation for the donations and compensation is illegal for profit (a notion backed by here rather insensitive comments).  Further it is illegal to change the procedure for the collection of said sample and she DIRECTLY points that out but then goes right on to say that she has no problem asking the doctor to do exactly that.  Have you even bothered to watch the damn video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video doesn't prove Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what parallel universe?
Click to expand...


Has anyone been charged ?

Is there an investigation ?


----------



## Mad Scientist

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, I think most libs would be happier if everyone had a remunerative job that put food on the table.
> 
> I'd be all for a federal jobs program that employed every able bodied American at a living wage. *You know, like the Europeans do*.


Look again. The European Union is failing.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Hey I don't want a Lambo but I DO wanna' restore an old 70-71 or 72 Chevelle. I figger I need about $25,000 in total. I'll do the work myself.

How many and what baby parts do me and wife need to sell to Planned Parenthood to raise the funds?


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> Nocatola said that they were *ok* as long as they didn't PLAN to change the procedure, but just went in and did it...but the thing is, the fact that she then admitted that she looked down at the patient admitting sheet and picked out the ones that would get the altered procedure (based on fetal age) for the purpose of organ harvest means that yup, they PLAN to engage in illegal procedures for the sake of selling tissue.



They are not harvest organs for transplant, they are saving tissue for medical research.  Procedures can be changed with consent.  Many women do not know or care what happens to the tissue.  It can provide for medical research or be incinerated.  Why waste the tissue if it can be of value to save the lives of others or improve their quality of life such as to grow skin for burn victims?

It can turn an unfortunate situation into something meaningful to others.  Even the tissue from a miscarriage can be of value to science and medicine.  Would you rather they become fuel for heating or to save other lives?  Placenta and umbilical cord are of medical value not just the fetus.  Even menses can be medically valuable for research and there are easy ways to remove it for preserving it.

I am amazed by how selfish and squeamish people are about discarded/rejected tissue and potential research

The crime is not saving other real lives with what would otherwise be biological waste.

Fuel vs medicine
It should not be that hard to understand


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

BlindBoo said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws have already been broken and freely admitted to on video tape (like for instance aborting in such a way to facilitate the removal of vital organs).
> The problem now is finding a way to force this administration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true there would already have been charges file in the local jurisdictions where the alleged crimes took place.  They know they don't have a case, that's why they are desperately appealing to emotion......
Click to expand...

That isn't necessarily true at all. All we have are uncoerced statements of non specific practices...hardly the sort of thing a local DA would file on and hardly in the jurisdiction of any one locality.
Face it...Planned Parenthood executives have held out their dirty laundry
and waved it around. They've stepped in it.


----------



## FA_Q2

aris2chat said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wait until Walker is elected President. He's already eliminated all state funding for Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In the U.S., the use of fetal tissue is regulated by law to prevent abuse. For example, women who donate their aborted fetuses for research are required to give their free and informed consent, and must not be asked to donate until after they have already decided to have an abortion. Fears that women are being coerced into abortions solely to obtain fetal tissue are irrational and unfounded.
> 
> In Canada, no laws exist at present on the handling and use of fetal tissue (a law is currently on the drawing board), but strict ethical guidelines are enforced by several independent research councils. Research funding is provided only to individuals and institutions that certify compliance with the guidelines. These cover much the same ground as the U.S. laws, including the requirement for informed consent from women without interfering with their abortion decision, and the obtainment of tissue through non-commercial means.
> 
> The only allegation currently under investigation by a U.S. Congressional committee is that two biomedical companies, acting as third parties in the collection of fetal tissue, are charging inflated handling fees to research institutions -- more than what is needed to cover costs. Let there be no doubt as to the unanimous pro-choice position on this -- if any type of illegal activity is happening -- and nothing has been proved as yet -- let's root it out and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. [Ed note: In August 2001, these two companies and a Kansas abortion clinic were cleared of any wrongdoing, after an FBI investigation concluded no illegal activities had occurred].
> 
> As for the vicious gossip about doctors killing babies to "harvest" their organs, such hearsay is more suited to publication in the Weekly World News. These rumours originate from a single, anonymous source -- "Kelly," who claims to be a former worker at an organ donation company in Maryland. The scenes she describes constitute criminal behaviour, and a gross violation of medical ethics. If her claims are true, why is she hiding behind a pseudonym, instead of helping bring the perpetrators to justice? Why did she go to Life Dynamics with her "evidence", instead of the police? These stories and their source are simply not credible, and abortion providers are outraged by even the suggestion of such barbaric practices. [Ed note: In March 2000, in front of a Congressional committee, the stories of "Kelly" and Life Dynamics were completely discredited—"Kelly" was actually Lawrence Dean Alberty, a paid spy for Life Dynamics, and he and LDI apparently fabricated much of the "evidence".]"
> 
> More vicious lies from the Irish Lassie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video says otherwise, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The producers of the video, like you, are lying pieces of shit.  It is not illegal to use fetal tissue in medical research.  Since the video was taken a year ago and no one has been arrested to charged, pretty clear who is the dumbass here, Lassie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to donate tissue or body parts, including aborted fetus, for medical research.  The cost to remove, preserve, or transport can be chaged in the arrangment.
> the $100 is not for the sale but the costs for the expenses of the tissue.
> The transaction being discussed is not illegal, it is not an actual "sale" but the costs for the expenses
> 
> Once the fetal tissue is removed it is not longer up to the mother what happens to the tissue.  It up to the clinc/hospital to dispose or donate for research.
Click to expand...

You say that is what it is for but I don't see expenses spoken about in the video.  What I see is a negotiation over price.

Tell me, how does costs for expenses change in a negotiation?  Costs are static - there would be no negotiation.


Also, the last part of your statement is blatantly false.  It is NOT up to the clinic what happens to the tissue.


----------



## FA_Q2

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know why that would be a conditional consideration, since one deals with standard of living and the other is life itself. But sure lets talk about welfare. Forget about the abuse of it on the part of citizens,(which needs to be part of the conversation) let's talk about the abuse coming from govt. an immense amount of taxpayer money goes into welfare, then you pay for a gigantic bureaucracy, that then doles out breadcrumbs to the needy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Corky, got to stop you right here because again, you are a retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check it out, Low Income Assistance is only 5.3% of the Federal Budget.
> 
> Meanwhile, "White People" entitlements of Social Security and Medicare make up 33% of the budget.
> 
> So, no we aren't lavishing a bunch of money on poor people, contrary to what people like you want to think.
Click to expand...

Couldn't help but point out the pure idiocy here.  'White people" entitlements.  LOL.  Can you get more asinine than this.  More racist vision from those that claim to not be racist.


----------



## hadit

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nocatola said that they were *ok* as long as they didn't PLAN to change the procedure, but just went in and did it...but the thing is, the fact that she then admitted that she looked down at the patient admitting sheet and picked out the ones that would get the altered procedure (based on fetal age) for the purpose of organ harvest means that yup, they PLAN to engage in illegal procedures for the sake of selling tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not harvest organs for transplant, they are saving tissue for medical research.  Procedures can be changed with consent.  Many women do not know or care what happens to the tissue.  It can provide for medical research or be incinerated.  Why waste the tissue if it can be of value to save the lives of others or improve their quality of life such as to grow skin for burn victims?
> 
> It can turn an unfortunate situation into something meaningful to others.  Even the tissue from a miscarriage can be of value to science and medicine.  Would you rather they become fuel for heating or to save other lives?  Placenta and umbilical cord are of medical value not just the fetus.  Even menses can be medically valuable for research and there are easy ways to remove it for preserving it.
> 
> I am amazed by how selfish and squeamish people are about discarded/rejected tissue and potential research
> 
> The crime is not saving other real lives with what would otherwise be biological waste.
> 
> Fuel vs medicine
> It should not be that hard to understand
Click to expand...

Some people are more opposed to using animals for research than they are about using unborn humans.


----------



## FA_Q2

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people should be closed down and locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, THAT'S the big concern here.
> 
> Can you even SPELL the word "priorities"?
Click to expand...

No.  Blind is literally blind in this issue.  As long as it supports killing the unborn apparently it cannot do anything wrong.


----------



## FA_Q2

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about optics.
> 
> Only the hard core believers are going to back PP on this one.
> 
> They lost more stock on this one....fraudlent or not.
> 
> Scares me that you can't have dinner and not wind up on YouTube.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can, provided you don't discuss illegal activities over your food.  I cannot count the number of times I've had dinner and discussed perfect ordinary, legal topics without winding up on YouTube.  It's really quite easy to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, as long as you don't have a group that is essentially stalking you, watching you all the time.
> 
> Such a group would only stalk you if they were looking to ensnare you in some kind of controversey.
> 
> My guess is that there wasn't a lot of thought given to the legality of the discussed subject.....it sounds BAD.
> 
> Whether or not I like PP, it bothers me that people would be sitting close to them at dinner and monitor  their conversations.
> 
> Isn't what happened (the videoing) illegal ?
Click to expand...

Sitting close to them?

No, the actual people doing the negotiations are taping them.  They are amateur journalists posing as a research company.


----------



## FA_Q2

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you not only condone illegal activities but
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already covered this - she is negotiating compensation for the donations and compensation is illegal for profit (a notion backed by here rather insensitive comments).  Further it is illegal to change the procedure for the collection of said sample and she DIRECTLY points that out but then goes right on to say that she has no problem asking the doctor to do exactly that.  Have you even bothered to watch the damn video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video doesn't prove Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what parallel universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has anyone been charged ?
> 
> Is there an investigation ?
Click to expand...

Yes there is.  It has already been pointed out.


BlindBoo said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Laws have already been broken and freely admitted to on video tape (like for instance aborting in such a way to facilitate the removal of vital organs).
> The problem now is finding a way to force this administration
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that were true there would already have been charges file in the local jurisdictions where the alleged crimes took place.  They know they don't have a case, that's why they are desperately appealing to emotion......
Click to expand...

Of course because the courts act instantly in your imaginary world.


----------



## koshergrl

FA_Q2 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people should be closed down and locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, THAT'S the big concern here.
> 
> Can you even SPELL the word "priorities"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Blind is literally blind in this issue.  As long as it supports killing the unborn apparently it cannot do anything wrong.
Click to expand...

 
No, but the #1 priority is to protect innocent and helpless life. As it should be.


----------



## aris2chat

FA_Q2 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people should be closed down and locked up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, THAT'S the big concern here.
> 
> Can you even SPELL the word "priorities"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Blind is literally blind in this issue.  As long as it supports killing the unborn apparently it cannot do anything wrong.
Click to expand...


If a women is desperate enough, she will find a way if she does not have access to clinics or family planning. She can do permanent harm to herself and even die.  Why is saving the women a bad thing?  Why not being forced into a pregnancy before she is ready a bad thing?  Why is using what would be waste or fuel to help others wrong?

Morally doctors save the mother's life.  Doctor treat the patient in front of them, not one that is only a potential but not complete being.  Doctors save the life they can not those they know they cannot.

In a perfect world there would never be an unwanted pregnancy and a women would not conceive when she was fully ready to be a mother.

In a perfect world there would never be a shortage of organs or necessary need to study or use tissue for research.  

In a perfect world there would be no want, no poverty, no suffering, no pain, no abuse, to danger............

We have never lived in a perfect world and possibly there will never be such a thing.

We deal with what we have and what can be done in the most logical way.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, THAT'S the big concern here.
> 
> Can you even SPELL the word "priorities"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Blind is literally blind in this issue.  As long as it supports killing the unborn apparently it cannot do anything wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a women is desperate enough, she will find a way if she does not have access to clinics or family planning. She can do permanent harm to herself and even die.  Why is saving the women a bad thing?  Why not being forced into a pregnancy before she is ready a bad thing?  Why is using what would be waste or fuel to help others wrong?
> 
> Morally doctors save the mother's life.  Doctor treat the patient in front of them, not one that is only a potential but not complete being.  Doctors save the life they can not those they know they cannot.
> 
> In a perfect world there would never be an unwanted pregnancy and a women would not conceive when she was fully ready to be a mother.
> 
> In a perfect world there would never be a shortage of organs or necessary need to study or use tissue for research.
> 
> In a perfect world there would be no want, no poverty, no suffering, no pain, no abuse, to danger............
> 
> We have never lived in a perfect world and possibly there will never be such a thing.
> 
> We deal with what we have and what can be done in the most logical way.
Click to expand...

 
One moment...you don't save women from abortions..by giving them abortions.

You see the problem, right?


----------



## FA_Q2

aris2chat said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, THAT'S the big concern here.
> 
> Can you even SPELL the word "priorities"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Blind is literally blind in this issue.  As long as it supports killing the unborn apparently it cannot do anything wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a women is desperate enough, she will find a way if she does not have access to clinics or family planning. She can do permanent harm to herself and even die.  Why is saving the women a bad thing?  Why not being forced into a pregnancy before she is ready a bad thing?  Why is using what would be waste or fuel to help others wrong?
> 
> Morally doctors save the mother's life.  Doctor treat the patient in front of them, not one that is only a potential but not complete being.  Doctors save the life they can not those they know they cannot.
> 
> In a perfect world there would never be an unwanted pregnancy and a women would not conceive when she was fully ready to be a mother.
> 
> In a perfect world there would never be a shortage of organs or necessary need to study or use tissue for research.
> 
> In a perfect world there would be no want, no poverty, no suffering, no pain, no abuse, to danger............
> 
> We have never lived in a perfect world and possibly there will never be such a thing.
> 
> We deal with what we have and what can be done in the most logical way.
Click to expand...

And?

You see, recognizing that blindboo is ignoring what is smacking him in the face is completely irrelevant to my position on abortion.

I support the right but for very different reasons than most.  I also acknowledge EXACTLY what it is and the horror of it.  That does not change what PP appears to be engaged in.


----------



## koshergrl

FA_Q2 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, THAT'S the big concern here.
> 
> Can you even SPELL the word "priorities"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Blind is literally blind in this issue.  As long as it supports killing the unborn apparently it cannot do anything wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a women is desperate enough, she will find a way if she does not have access to clinics or family planning. She can do permanent harm to herself and even die.  Why is saving the women a bad thing?  Why not being forced into a pregnancy before she is ready a bad thing?  Why is using what would be waste or fuel to help others wrong?
> 
> Morally doctors save the mother's life.  Doctor treat the patient in front of them, not one that is only a potential but not complete being.  Doctors save the life they can not those they know they cannot.
> 
> In a perfect world there would never be an unwanted pregnancy and a women would not conceive when she was fully ready to be a mother.
> 
> In a perfect world there would never be a shortage of organs or necessary need to study or use tissue for research.
> 
> In a perfect world there would be no want, no poverty, no suffering, no pain, no abuse, to danger............
> 
> We have never lived in a perfect world and possibly there will never be such a thing.
> 
> We deal with what we have and what can be done in the most logical way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And?
> 
> You see, recognizing that blindboo is ignoring what is smacking him in the face is completely irrelevant to my position on abortion.
> 
> I support the right but for very different reasons than most.  I also acknowledge EXACTLY what it is and the horror of it.  That does not change what PP appears to be engaged in.
Click to expand...

 
Most of the people who support planned parenthood know exactly what it is about. You aren't original, trust me. There's a whole little group of you sick fucks who are fine with exploiting, victimizing and killing the most vulnerable in a deluded attempt to *reduce* certain populations. The poor, the mentally challenged, the deformed, whatever. Most of them pretend they want the abortion mills to run because they *care* so much, but it's just about killing. That's all it's ever been about.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Your argument is screwed this week. Lots of buy one get one deals and 2/1.00 deals on proteins.
> 
> ....
> Shrimp (5.99 lb)
> )



Shrimp?  Are you fucking kidding me?


----------



## JoeB131

Mad Scientist said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think most libs would be happier if everyone had a remunerative job that put food on the table.
> 
> I'd be all for a federal jobs program that employed every able bodied American at a living wage. *You know, like the Europeans do*.
> 
> 
> 
> Look again. The European Union is failing.
Click to expand...


Not as badly as we are.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> Some people are more opposed to using animals for research than they are about using unborn humans.



There's no such thing as an "unborn human".  

And, yes, animal research is cruel because it often subjects the animal to extended pain, with no real benefit. (what works on an animal won't necessarily work on a person.)


----------



## aris2chat

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people are more opposed to using animals for research than they are about using unborn humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as an "unborn human".
> 
> And, yes, animal research is cruel because it often subjects the animal to extended pain, with no real benefit. (what works on an animal won't necessarily work on a person.)
Click to expand...


animal testing can be controlled, human testing is problematic.  animals can be bred faster and tested in smaller labs and facilities.  You can even breed in certain traits, or out.  more cost efficient.

machines alone can not tell you what happens or the side effect.


----------



## Care4all

koshergrl said:


> The law was already linked somewhere.
> And I didn't complain that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. The reality is that both the doctors talked about CHANGING the procedure in order to FACILITATE organ harvest. And THAT is against the law. You can't change a procedure for the sake of selling tissue or for any purpose except safety.
> 
> And the procedure they were choosing to change to was partial birth abortion...which is illegal.


someone posted the law earlier, it might have been you?  But my question about the law on not changing the organ donor's treatment, is so that Doctors do not take the organ donor off any of their life support, or medically treat them differently than a person dying who is not donating organs etc....  in other words, the dying organ donor's death would not be expedited or changed due to them being organ donors...

IS this law applicable to a fetus being aborted?


----------



## Mad Scientist

JoeB131 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I think most libs would be happier if everyone had a remunerative job that put food on the table. I'd be all for a federal jobs program that employed every able bodied American at a living wage. *You know, like the Europeans do*.
> 
> 
> 
> Look again. The European Union is failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as badly as we are.
Click to expand...

Joe doesn't know AT LEAST 2 things:
Government CAN'T Create Jobs.
Greece is part of the European Union.

Also Joe, the US CAN'T be failing because Obama is President and signing Executive Orders all by himself. 

You better get with the Talking Points.


----------



## koshergrl

Care4all said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law was already linked somewhere.
> And I didn't complain that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. The reality is that both the doctors talked about CHANGING the procedure in order to FACILITATE organ harvest. And THAT is against the law. You can't change a procedure for the sake of selling tissue or for any purpose except safety.
> 
> And the procedure they were choosing to change to was partial birth abortion...which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> someone posted the law earlier, it might have been you?  But my question about the law on not changing the organ donor's treatment, is so that Doctors do not take the organ donor off any of their life support, or medically treat them differently than a person dying who is not donating organs etc....  in other words, the dying organ donor's death would not be expedited or changed due to them being organ donors...
> 
> IS this law applicable to a fetus being aborted?
Click to expand...

Yes, the law exists to prevent unscrupulous doctors from altering treatment for the sake of extracting tissue that has monetary value. Even you should see the conflict of interest inherent in such a practice....suddenly the law, and safety of the mother, is secondary to the resource inside of her. And suddenly they have a motive for encouraging late term abortion...or lying to women about the age of their babies, or the viability of their baby.


----------



## koshergrl

Which, of course, is exactly what happened.


----------



## Jroc

Care4all said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law was already linked somewhere.
> And I didn't complain that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. The reality is that both the doctors talked about CHANGING the procedure in order to FACILITATE organ harvest. And THAT is against the law. You can't change a procedure for the sake of selling tissue or for any purpose except safety.
> 
> And the procedure they were choosing to change to was partial birth abortion...which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> someone posted the law earlier, it might have been you?  But my question about the law on not changing the organ donor's treatment, is so that Doctors do not take the organ donor off any of their life support, or medically treat them differently than a person dying who is not donating organs etc....  in other words, the dying organ donor's death would not be expedited or changed due to them being organ donors...
> 
> IS this law applicable to a fetus being aborted?
Click to expand...



If left up to you libs, women will get paid to get pregnant, so they can abort the pregnancy and then harvest the babies organs... You people are sick


----------



## Care4all

Jroc said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law was already linked somewhere.
> And I didn't complain that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. The reality is that both the doctors talked about CHANGING the procedure in order to FACILITATE organ harvest. And THAT is against the law. You can't change a procedure for the sake of selling tissue or for any purpose except safety.
> 
> And the procedure they were choosing to change to was partial birth abortion...which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> someone posted the law earlier, it might have been you?  But my question about the law on not changing the organ donor's treatment, is so that Doctors do not take the organ donor off any of their life support, or medically treat them differently than a person dying who is not donating organs etc....  in other words, the dying organ donor's death would not be expedited or changed due to them being organ donors...
> 
> IS this law applicable to a fetus being aborted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If left up to you libs, women will get paid to get pregnant, so they can abort the pregnancy and then harvest the babies organs... You people are sick
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## Jroc

Care4all said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law was already linked somewhere.
> And I didn't complain that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. The reality is that both the doctors talked about CHANGING the procedure in order to FACILITATE organ harvest. And THAT is against the law. You can't change a procedure for the sake of selling tissue or for any purpose except safety.
> 
> And the procedure they were choosing to change to was partial birth abortion...which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> someone posted the law earlier, it might have been you?  But my question about the law on not changing the organ donor's treatment, is so that Doctors do not take the organ donor off any of their life support, or medically treat them differently than a person dying who is not donating organs etc....  in other words, the dying organ donor's death would not be expedited or changed due to them being organ donors...
> 
> IS this law applicable to a fetus being aborted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If left up to you libs, women will get paid to get pregnant, so they can abort the pregnancy and then harvest the babies organs... You people are sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

You marching orders may soon come, if  radical leftists and their clueless followers get their way


----------



## paddymurphy

FA_Q2 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wait until Walker is elected President. He's already eliminated all state funding for Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In the U.S., the use of fetal tissue is regulated by law to prevent abuse. For example, women who donate their aborted fetuses for research are required to give their free and informed consent, and must not be asked to donate until after they have already decided to have an abortion. Fears that women are being coerced into abortions solely to obtain fetal tissue are irrational and unfounded.
> 
> In Canada, no laws exist at present on the handling and use of fetal tissue (a law is currently on the drawing board), but strict ethical guidelines are enforced by several independent research councils. Research funding is provided only to individuals and institutions that certify compliance with the guidelines. These cover much the same ground as the U.S. laws, including the requirement for informed consent from women without interfering with their abortion decision, and the obtainment of tissue through non-commercial means.
> 
> The only allegation currently under investigation by a U.S. Congressional committee is that two biomedical companies, acting as third parties in the collection of fetal tissue, are charging inflated handling fees to research institutions -- more than what is needed to cover costs. Let there be no doubt as to the unanimous pro-choice position on this -- if any type of illegal activity is happening -- and nothing has been proved as yet -- let's root it out and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. [Ed note: In August 2001, these two companies and a Kansas abortion clinic were cleared of any wrongdoing, after an FBI investigation concluded no illegal activities had occurred].
> 
> As for the vicious gossip about doctors killing babies to "harvest" their organs, such hearsay is more suited to publication in the Weekly World News. These rumours originate from a single, anonymous source -- "Kelly," who claims to be a former worker at an organ donation company in Maryland. The scenes she describes constitute criminal behaviour, and a gross violation of medical ethics. If her claims are true, why is she hiding behind a pseudonym, instead of helping bring the perpetrators to justice? Why did she go to Life Dynamics with her "evidence", instead of the police? These stories and their source are simply not credible, and abortion providers are outraged by even the suggestion of such barbaric practices. [Ed note: In March 2000, in front of a Congressional committee, the stories of "Kelly" and Life Dynamics were completely discredited—"Kelly" was actually Lawrence Dean Alberty, a paid spy for Life Dynamics, and he and LDI apparently fabricated much of the "evidence".]"
> 
> More vicious lies from the Irish Lassie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video says otherwise, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The producers of the video, like you, are lying pieces of shit.  It is not illegal to use fetal tissue in medical research.  Since the video was taken a year ago and no one has been arrested to charged, pretty clear who is the dumbass here, Lassie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to donate tissue or body parts, including aborted fetus, for medical research.  The cost to remove, preserve, or transport can be chaged in the arrangment.
> the $100 is not for the sale but the costs for the expenses of the tissue.
> The transaction being discussed is not illegal, it is not an actual "sale" but the costs for the expenses
> 
> Once the fetal tissue is removed it is not longer up to the mother what happens to the tissue.  It up to the clinc/hospital to dispose or donate for research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that is what it is for but I don't see expenses spoken about in the video.  What I see is a negotiation over price.
> 
> Tell me, how does costs for expenses change in a negotiation?  Costs are static - there would be no negotiation.
> 
> 
> Also, the last part of your statement is blatantly false.  It is NOT up to the clinic what happens to the tissue.
Click to expand...

There was no negotiation.  There was a discussion where the lying pieces of shit tried to get the doctor to discuss money for the tissue, and she refused because they do not sell tissue.


----------



## koshergrl

Care4all said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law was already linked somewhere.
> And I didn't complain that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. The reality is that both the doctors talked about CHANGING the procedure in order to FACILITATE organ harvest. And THAT is against the law. You can't change a procedure for the sake of selling tissue or for any purpose except safety.
> 
> And the procedure they were choosing to change to was partial birth abortion...which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> someone posted the law earlier, it might have been you?  But my question about the law on not changing the organ donor's treatment, is so that Doctors do not take the organ donor off any of their life support, or medically treat them differently than a person dying who is not donating organs etc....  in other words, the dying organ donor's death would not be expedited or changed due to them being organ donors...
> 
> IS this law applicable to a fetus being aborted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If left up to you libs, women will get paid to get pregnant, so they can abort the pregnancy and then harvest the babies organs... You people are sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

Do you really want us to post the disgusting displays of PP "I Wanna Lamboirghini" aka "Miss The Crunchy Bits" and "Gourmet Salad Nocotala"? You do have a strong stomach. Not surprising, considering what you advocate.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is screwed this week. Lots of buy one get one deals and 2/1.00 deals on proteins.
> 
> ....
> Shrimp (5.99 lb)
> )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shrimp?  Are you fucking kidding me?
Click to expand...

What you never eat stir fry and rice?

Tell you what... I will start a thread for you and show you how to plan a menu for $ 99.91 this week with 19.09 left over to stock up on a few items.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In the U.S., the use of fetal tissue is regulated by law to prevent abuse. For example, women who donate their aborted fetuses for research are required to give their free and informed consent, and must not be asked to donate until after they have already decided to have an abortion. Fears that women are being coerced into abortions solely to obtain fetal tissue are irrational and unfounded.
> 
> In Canada, no laws exist at present on the handling and use of fetal tissue (a law is currently on the drawing board), but strict ethical guidelines are enforced by several independent research councils. Research funding is provided only to individuals and institutions that certify compliance with the guidelines. These cover much the same ground as the U.S. laws, including the requirement for informed consent from women without interfering with their abortion decision, and the obtainment of tissue through non-commercial means.
> 
> The only allegation currently under investigation by a U.S. Congressional committee is that two biomedical companies, acting as third parties in the collection of fetal tissue, are charging inflated handling fees to research institutions -- more than what is needed to cover costs. Let there be no doubt as to the unanimous pro-choice position on this -- if any type of illegal activity is happening -- and nothing has been proved as yet -- let's root it out and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. [Ed note: In August 2001, these two companies and a Kansas abortion clinic were cleared of any wrongdoing, after an FBI investigation concluded no illegal activities had occurred].
> 
> As for the vicious gossip about doctors killing babies to "harvest" their organs, such hearsay is more suited to publication in the Weekly World News. These rumours originate from a single, anonymous source -- "Kelly," who claims to be a former worker at an organ donation company in Maryland. The scenes she describes constitute criminal behaviour, and a gross violation of medical ethics. If her claims are true, why is she hiding behind a pseudonym, instead of helping bring the perpetrators to justice? Why did she go to Life Dynamics with her "evidence", instead of the police? These stories and their source are simply not credible, and abortion providers are outraged by even the suggestion of such barbaric practices. [Ed note: In March 2000, in front of a Congressional committee, the stories of "Kelly" and Life Dynamics were completely discredited—"Kelly" was actually Lawrence Dean Alberty, a paid spy for Life Dynamics, and he and LDI apparently fabricated much of the "evidence".]"
> 
> More vicious lies from the Irish Lassie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The video says otherwise, dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The producers of the video, like you, are lying pieces of shit.  It is not illegal to use fetal tissue in medical research.  Since the video was taken a year ago and no one has been arrested to charged, pretty clear who is the dumbass here, Lassie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to donate tissue or body parts, including aborted fetus, for medical research.  The cost to remove, preserve, or transport can be chaged in the arrangment.
> the $100 is not for the sale but the costs for the expenses of the tissue.
> The transaction being discussed is not illegal, it is not an actual "sale" but the costs for the expenses
> 
> Once the fetal tissue is removed it is not longer up to the mother what happens to the tissue.  It up to the clinc/hospital to dispose or donate for research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that is what it is for but I don't see expenses spoken about in the video.  What I see is a negotiation over price.
> 
> Tell me, how does costs for expenses change in a negotiation?  Costs are static - there would be no negotiation.
> 
> 
> Also, the last part of your statement is blatantly false.  It is NOT up to the clinic what happens to the tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no negotiation.  There was a discussion where the lying pieces of shit tried to get the doctor to discuss money for the tissue, and she refused because they do not sell tissue.
Click to expand...

30-100 dollars, according to Nocatola. Lowball $100, according to "I Wanna Lambourghini". Enough to do a little better than breaking even, smile wink, Nocatola said.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The video says otherwise, dumb ass.
> 
> 
> 
> The producers of the video, like you, are lying pieces of shit.  It is not illegal to use fetal tissue in medical research.  Since the video was taken a year ago and no one has been arrested to charged, pretty clear who is the dumbass here, Lassie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to donate tissue or body parts, including aborted fetus, for medical research.  The cost to remove, preserve, or transport can be chaged in the arrangment.
> the $100 is not for the sale but the costs for the expenses of the tissue.
> The transaction being discussed is not illegal, it is not an actual "sale" but the costs for the expenses
> 
> Once the fetal tissue is removed it is not longer up to the mother what happens to the tissue.  It up to the clinc/hospital to dispose or donate for research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that is what it is for but I don't see expenses spoken about in the video.  What I see is a negotiation over price.
> 
> Tell me, how does costs for expenses change in a negotiation?  Costs are static - there would be no negotiation.
> 
> 
> Also, the last part of your statement is blatantly false.  It is NOT up to the clinic what happens to the tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no negotiation.  There was a discussion where the lying pieces of shit tried to get the doctor to discuss money for the tissue, and she refused because they do not sell tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 30-100 dollars, according to Nocatola. Lowball $100, according to "I Wanna Lambourghini". Enough to do a little better than breaking even, smile wink, Nocatola said.
Click to expand...

Ten days later, 115 pages of posts, and you still lie.  What a disgusting piece of shitbyou are..


----------



## aris2chat

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is screwed this week. Lots of buy one get one deals and 2/1.00 deals on proteins.
> 
> ....
> Shrimp (5.99 lb)
> )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shrimp?  Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you never eat stir fry and rice?
> 
> Tell you what... I will start a thread for you and show you how to plan a menu for $ 99.91 this week with 19.09 left over to stock up on a few items.
Click to expand...


Over priced.
If I'm not mistake, that is what many get for a whole month with food stamps/EBT.  Then again there are places where that is dinner for one at a restaurant, or more without drinks
americans waste so much food every day and most don't even compost 
Generators now can run on plant waste for electricity.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The producers of the video, like you, are lying pieces of shit.  It is not illegal to use fetal tissue in medical research.  Since the video was taken a year ago and no one has been arrested to charged, pretty clear who is the dumbass here, Lassie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to donate tissue or body parts, including aborted fetus, for medical research.  The cost to remove, preserve, or transport can be chaged in the arrangment.
> the $100 is not for the sale but the costs for the expenses of the tissue.
> The transaction being discussed is not illegal, it is not an actual "sale" but the costs for the expenses
> 
> Once the fetal tissue is removed it is not longer up to the mother what happens to the tissue.  It up to the clinc/hospital to dispose or donate for research.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say that is what it is for but I don't see expenses spoken about in the video.  What I see is a negotiation over price.
> 
> Tell me, how does costs for expenses change in a negotiation?  Costs are static - there would be no negotiation.
> 
> 
> Also, the last part of your statement is blatantly false.  It is NOT up to the clinic what happens to the tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no negotiation.  There was a discussion where the lying pieces of shit tried to get the doctor to discuss money for the tissue, and she refused because they do not sell tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 30-100 dollars, according to Nocatola. Lowball $100, according to "I Wanna Lambourghini". Enough to do a little better than breaking even, smile wink, Nocatola said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ten days later, 115 pages of posts, and you still lie.  What a disgusting piece of shitbyou are..
Click to expand...

It's all in the videos, which I watched. Thank you, I will believe what drs. "Crush Above and Below The Thorax/Law is Open to Interpretation" Nocatola and "I Wanna Lambourghini I Don't Wanna Lowball the Price" said, and not an anonymous internet troll, thanks.


----------



## BlueGin

aris2chat said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is screwed this week. Lots of buy one get one deals and 2/1.00 deals on proteins.
> 
> ....
> Shrimp (5.99 lb)
> )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shrimp?  Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you never eat stir fry and rice?
> 
> Tell you what... I will start a thread for you and show you how to plan a menu for $ 99.91 this week with 19.09 left over to stock up on a few items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over priced.
> If I'm not mistake, that is what many get for a whole month with food stamps/EBT.  Then again there are places where that is dinner for one at a restaurant, or more without drinks
> americans waste so much food every day and most don't even compost
> Generators now can run on plant waste for electricity.
Click to expand...


I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4.  But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.

I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.


----------



## JoeB131

Mad Scientist said:


> Joe doesn't know AT LEAST 2 things:
> Government CAN'T Create Jobs.
> Greece is part of the European Union.



Government can easily create jobs. They do it all the time. 

Greece is one member of the EU. The other members are doing fine... better than we are. 



Mad Scientist said:


> Also Joe, the US CAN'T be failing because Obama is President and signing Executive Orders all by himself.



Uh, no, dummy. Obama can't fix the underlying problems we have in this country.  I kind of suspect they won't get solved until some of our elite are lined up against walls.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4. But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
> 
> I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.



Horseshit.  Nobody can feed a family of four on $50.00 a week.  

Just doesn't happen.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4. But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
> 
> I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Nobody can feed a family of four on $50.00 a week.
> 
> Just doesn't happen.
Click to expand...


Sure it does.

Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.

Know the stores that price match (Family Dollar Store and Walmart for example).

Use the coupons on your stores website,apps and in store fliers or that come in the mail. Target especially will have 5 dollar gift cards free with purchase of certain items ...example : Pantene products...you can combine them with manufacture coupons. I never pay more than .75/.99 cents for shampoo and conditioner. And they also have 5/10 dollars coupons off meat purchases of 25.00/50.00 once in awhile.

Albertsons will have 10.00 off 100.00 purchases once in awhile also.

Otherwise... I wait for the buy one get one deals at Albertsons or go early Sunday morning when Albertsons marks down the hamburger. Thursdays for Smiths

Want cheap fruit and veggies? Shop at Sprouts . They also have good sales prices on meat. Usually sausage and chicken kabobs.

Buy things like tea bags, salad dressing, hot dog /hamburger buns, honey and certain snacks like pretzels at Dollar Tree. Every once in awhile they will have frozen broccoli and cauliflower and frozen onion rings and fries. 

And check your local farmers market. Here the hospitals have them once a week on Thursdays. Folks can use their EBT cards there.

You should never pay full price for anything if you don't have to.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Sure it does.
> 
> Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.



So they should spend money to buy newspapers to find out where they can save 10 cents on a package of bacon... um, yeah. Right.  

Because clearly, making big corporations rich is important. 

Right.  

and don't you go thinking about having no abortion! You go ahead and have kid #4 so we can look down on you when you whip out that EBT Card!


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they should spend money to buy newspapers to find out where they can save 10 cents on a package of bacon... um, yeah. Right.
> 
> Because clearly, making big corporations rich is important.
> 
> Right.
> 
> and don't you go thinking about having no abortion! You go ahead and have kid #4 so we can look down on you when you whip out that EBT Card!
Click to expand...


You do realize free store ads are located at the door when you walk In all grocery stores... Yes?

And as an FYI... Target lists their gift card deals and

meat and other coupons on signs throughout the store.  Even Obama supporters such as yourself can pull those puppies up on their government issue cell phone.

You can thank me later


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they should spend money to buy newspapers to find out where they can save 10 cents on a package of bacon... um, yeah. Right.
> 
> Because clearly, making big corporations rich is important.
> 
> Right.
> 
> and don't you go thinking about having no abortion! You go ahead and have kid #4 so we can look down on you when you whip out that EBT Card!
Click to expand...

You can print out coupons online........My wife does so all the time..................I spend a lot more than the 50 or so a week though.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> You can print out coupons online........My wife does so all the time..................I spend a lot more than the 50 or so a week though.



So now all those poor people need is a computer and a printer and to be able to afford a hundred b ucks a month or so for internet service.... 

Wow, you Entitled White People are totally full of good ideas. 

Here's an idea.  Maybe what these poor people can do is actually sell their fetus parts on line, since you guys seem to think that's such a lucrative business.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> You do realize free store ads are located at the door when you walk In all grocery stores... Yes?
> 
> And as an FYI... Target lists their gift card deals and
> 
> meat and other coupons on signs throughout the store. Even Obama supporters such as yourself can pull those puppies up on their government issue cell phone.
> 
> You can thank me later



Wait now, you really think that the Obamaphones have unlimited internet access?

Maybe you need to check your fucking privilege and realize that being poor in this country REALLY KIND OF SUCKS!


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they should spend money to buy newspapers to find out where they can save 10 cents on a package of bacon... um, yeah. Right.
> 
> Because clearly, making big corporations rich is important.
> 
> Right.
> 
> and don't you go thinking about having no abortion! You go ahead and have kid #4 so we can look down on you when you whip out that EBT Card!
Click to expand...


Abortions cost a fortune . And they take a toll on your mental and physical health.

If botched like the ones performed by your hero Kermit Gosnell... Your medical bills for reconstructive surgery and therapy will skyrocket.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can print out coupons online........My wife does so all the time..................I spend a lot more than the 50 or so a week though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now all those poor people need is a computer and a printer and to be able to afford a hundred b ucks a month or so for internet service....
> 
> Wow, you Entitled White People are totally full of good ideas.
> 
> Here's an idea.  Maybe what these poor people can do is actually sell their fetus parts on line, since you guys seem to think that's such a lucrative business.
Click to expand...


Again. Coupons can be pulled up on your free Obama phone. And they come in the mail.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can print out coupons online........My wife does so all the time..................I spend a lot more than the 50 or so a week though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now all those poor people need is a computer and a printer and to be able to afford a hundred b ucks a month or so for internet service....
> 
> Wow, you Entitled White People are totally full of good ideas.
> 
> Here's an idea.  Maybe what these poor people can do is actually sell their fetus parts on line, since you guys seem to think that's such a lucrative business.
Click to expand...

I was giving an example of how to save money.................whatever Joe...............Pay full price if you want and give the rest of your money to the gov't.  Be my guest..........go ahead.

Fetus parts are more than likely sold fro stem research...........
And your party and Hildabeast are the champions of that group.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Abortions cost a fortune . And they take a toll on your mental and physical health.
> 
> If botched like the one performed by your hero Kermit Gosnell... Your medical bills for reconstructive surgery and therapy will skyrocket.



abortions cost about $300.  WHich admittably, if you are poor, are hard to get. 

Yes, Gosnell was a horrible thing. He happened because anti-choice nuts passed a bunch of laws that closed down half the abortion clinics in PA.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Again. Coupons can be pulled up on your free Obama phone. And they come in the mail.



Oooookay, frankly, I never get them.  I get a lot of sh it in the mail, but never that.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize free store ads are located at the door when you walk In all grocery stores... Yes?
> 
> And as an FYI... Target lists their gift card deals and
> 
> meat and other coupons on signs throughout the store. Even Obama supporters such as yourself can pull those puppies up on their government issue cell phone.
> 
> You can thank me later
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait now, you really think that the Obamaphones have unlimited internet access?
> 
> Maybe you need to check your fucking privilege and realize that being poor in this country REALLY KIND OF SUCKS!
Click to expand...


What part of ... Free store ads are located at the door of your grocery store ... Or come in the mail did you miss?


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again. Coupons can be pulled up on your free Obama phone. And they come in the mail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooookay, frankly, I never get them.  I get a lot of sh it in the mail, but never that.
Click to expand...


Red Plum manufacture coupon inserts come with the store ads in the mail. And store coupons come with your grocery receipt ... both free.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> I was giving an example of how to save money.................whatever Joe...............Pay full price if you want and give the rest of your money to the gov't. Be my guest..........go ahead.
> 
> Fetus parts are more than likely sold fro stem research...........
> And your party and Hildabeast are the champions of that group.



Guy, you and your little friend wouldn't last five minutes putting up with what poor people have to put up wiht. 

You two babble on about Coupons and shit.  The reality is, in a lot of poor areas you have "Food deserts".  It's where the chain stores don't open  up stores in poor areas... 

Agricultural Marketing Service - Creating Access to Healthy Affordable Food

_*Food deserts are defined as urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. Instead of supermarkets and grocery stores, these communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer few healthy, affordable food options. The lack of access contributes to a poor diet and can lead to higher levels of obesity and other diet-related diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease.*

*USDA was at the forefront of identifying food deserts and working to eliminate them when the Department created its High Priority Performance Goals. USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that 23.5 million people live in food deserts. More than half of those people (13.5 million) are low-income.*_


But you white privilege types think "Well, I can print out some on-line coupons and hop into my big gas-guzzling SUV and save a whole ten cents on a package of bacon, so I don't know what them poor people are complaining about!"


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> What part of ... Free store ads are located at the door of your grocery store ... Or come in the mail did you miss?



Again, check out my last post about "Food deserts", Ms. White Privilege.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of ... Free store ads are located at the door of your grocery store ... Or come in the mail did you miss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, check out my last post about "Food deserts", Ms. White Privilege.
Click to expand...


Hardly. I just have to shop wisely since I pay the bill for all the libs entitlement programs.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was giving an example of how to save money.................whatever Joe...............Pay full price if you want and give the rest of your money to the gov't. Be my guest..........go ahead.
> 
> Fetus parts are more than likely sold fro stem research...........
> And your party and Hildabeast are the champions of that group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you and your little friend wouldn't last five minutes putting up with what poor people have to put up wiht.
> 
> You two babble on about Coupons and shit.  The reality is, in a lot of poor areas you have "Food deserts".  It's where the chain stores don't open  up stores in poor areas...
> 
> Agricultural Marketing Service - Creating Access to Healthy Affordable Food
> 
> _*Food deserts are defined as urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. Instead of supermarkets and grocery stores, these communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer few healthy, affordable food options. The lack of access contributes to a poor diet and can lead to higher levels of obesity and other diet-related diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease.*
> 
> *USDA was at the forefront of identifying food deserts and working to eliminate them when the Department created its High Priority Performance Goals. USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that 23.5 million people live in food deserts. More than half of those people (13.5 million) are low-income.*_
> 
> 
> But you white privilege types think "Well, I can print out some on-line coupons and hop into my big gas-guzzling SUV and save a whole ten cents on a package of bacon, so I don't know what them poor people are complaining about!"
Click to expand...

Guy you don't know shit...............while in college I survived on Ramen noodles......................had no money.............
So spare me the BS>


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Hardly. I just have to shop wisely since I pay the bill for all the libs entitlement programs.



We spend more on White People entitlements than we do on poor people entitlements. 

Medicare and Social Security are 33% of the Federal budget and they mostly go old white people who vote Republican.  

Welfare payments make up less than 8% of the budget. 

Again, my solution to this is simple. INstead of paying these people to not starve, we should require living wages, scrap all the bullshit trade treaties and spend a lot of money rebuilding our infrastructure.  You know, what we used to do before the nuts started talking about "limited government' and shit.


----------



## BlueGin

eagle1462010 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was giving an example of how to save money.................whatever Joe...............Pay full price if you want and give the rest of your money to the gov't. Be my guest..........go ahead.
> 
> Fetus parts are more than likely sold fro stem research...........
> And your party and Hildabeast are the champions of that group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you and your little friend wouldn't last five minutes putting up with what poor people have to put up wiht.
> 
> You two babble on about Coupons and shit.  The reality is, in a lot of poor areas you have "Food deserts".  It's where the chain stores don't open  up stores in poor areas...
> 
> Agricultural Marketing Service - Creating Access to Healthy Affordable Food
> 
> _*Food deserts are defined as urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. Instead of supermarkets and grocery stores, these communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer few healthy, affordable food options. The lack of access contributes to a poor diet and can lead to higher levels of obesity and other diet-related diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease.*
> 
> *USDA was at the forefront of identifying food deserts and working to eliminate them when the Department created its High Priority Performance Goals. USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that 23.5 million people live in food deserts. More than half of those people (13.5 million) are low-income.*_
> 
> 
> But you white privilege types think "Well, I can print out some on-line coupons and hop into my big gas-guzzling SUV and save a whole ten cents on a package of bacon, so I don't know what them poor people are complaining about!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guy you don't know shit...............while in college I survived on Ramen noodles......................had no money.............
> So spare me the BS>
Click to expand...


Dipshit doesn't realize when you are a single mother of two ...but make 12.00 too much a month for state aid....You learn real quick how to save money and buy things on sale to feed your kids without handouts.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Guy you don't know shit...............while in college I survived on Ramen noodles......................had no money.............
> So spare me the BS>



the fact you could afford college says otherwise.  

Of course, given most of your posts are barely literate, I have to wonder how much money was wasted there.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Dipshit doesn't realize when you are a single mother of two ...but make 12.00 too much a month for state aid....You learn real quick how to save money and buy things on sale to feed your kids without handouts.



A whole $12.00? Really.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy you don't know shit...............while in college I survived on Ramen noodles......................had no money.............
> So spare me the BS>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the fact you could afford college says otherwise.
> 
> Of course, given most of your posts are barely literate, I have to wonder how much money was wasted there.
Click to expand...

Scholarship bitch.  didn't pay for food and housing.  Next


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dipshit doesn't realize when you are a single mother of two ...but make 12.00 too much a month for state aid....You learn real quick how to save money and buy things on sale to feed your kids without handouts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A whole $12.00? Really.
Click to expand...


Yep... They will cut you off for less than that. Unless of course you agree to work less hours and fudge your pay stubs.

True story


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Scholarship bitch. didn't pay for food and housing. Next



You mean...

You went to college ON SOMEONE ELSE'S DIME? 

And you are bitching because poor people are getting food stamps to feed their kids?  

I'm wondering if you see the irony here.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Yep... They will cut you off for less than that. Unless of course you agree to work less hours and fudge your pay stubs.
> 
> True story



then fudge your pay stubs. Not seeing a problem here.


----------



## BlueGin

eagle1462010 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was giving an example of how to save money.................whatever Joe...............Pay full price if you want and give the rest of your money to the gov't. Be my guest..........go ahead.
> 
> Fetus parts are more than likely sold fro stem research...........
> And your party and Hildabeast are the champions of that group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you and your little friend wouldn't last five minutes putting up with what poor people have to put up wiht.
> 
> You two babble on about Coupons and shit.  The reality is, in a lot of poor areas you have "Food deserts".  It's where the chain stores don't open  up stores in poor areas...
> 
> Agricultural Marketing Service - Creating Access to Healthy Affordable Food
> 
> _*Food deserts are defined as urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. Instead of supermarkets and grocery stores, these communities may have no food access or are served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer few healthy, affordable food options. The lack of access contributes to a poor diet and can lead to higher levels of obesity and other diet-related diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease.*
> 
> *USDA was at the forefront of identifying food deserts and working to eliminate them when the Department created its High Priority Performance Goals. USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that 23.5 million people live in food deserts. More than half of those people (13.5 million) are low-income.*_
> 
> 
> But you white privilege types think "Well, I can print out some on-line coupons and hop into my big gas-guzzling SUV and save a whole ten cents on a package of bacon, so I don't know what them poor people are complaining about!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Guy you don't know shit...............while in college I survived on Ramen noodles......................had no money.............
> So spare me the BS>
Click to expand...


There is a whole cook book about ways to use Ramen noodles. Probably because they are a staple for college kids.

Sometimes we use them instead of rice or Spaghetti .

Hey Joe. Ramen noodles are on sale this week for 4/1.00... You don't even need a coupon.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scholarship bitch. didn't pay for food and housing. Next
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean...
> 
> You went to college ON SOMEONE ELSE'S DIME?
> 
> And you are bitching because poor people are getting food stamps to feed their kids?
> 
> I'm wondering if you see the irony here.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scholarship bitch. didn't pay for food and housing. Next
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean...
> 
> You went to college ON SOMEONE ELSE'S DIME?
> 
> And you are bitching because poor people are getting food stamps to feed their kids?
> 
> I'm wondering if you see the irony here.
Click to expand...

Nope.  I excelled and qualified for a program...............And that is available to all who tries to excel in school, even these people you continually complain about.  and I've paid it back over the years with all the taxes I've paid............100 times over................

Where did I say I'm gonna take food stamps away.........................That other voice pop up in your head again.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... They will cut you off for less than that. Unless of course you agree to work less hours and fudge your pay stubs.
> 
> True story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then fudge your pay stubs. Not seeing a problem here.
Click to expand...


Naw... I just applied for a better job.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... They will cut you off for less than that. Unless of course you agree to work less hours and fudge your pay stubs.
> 
> True story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then fudge your pay stubs. Not seeing a problem here.
Click to expand...


Of course you don't . Libs lie.


----------



## eagle1462010

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... They will cut you off for less than that. Unless of course you agree to work less hours and fudge your pay stubs.
> 
> True story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then fudge your pay stubs. Not seeing a problem here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't . Libs lie.
Click to expand...

Their stock and trade.........It's ok to Lie for them..............It's second nature to the likes of Joe.


----------



## BlueGin

eagle1462010 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep... They will cut you off for less than that. Unless of course you agree to work less hours and fudge your pay stubs.
> 
> True story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then fudge your pay stubs. Not seeing a problem here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you don't . Libs lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Their stock and trade.........It's ok to Lie for them..............It's second nature to the likes of Joe.
Click to expand...


Yeah. And bump in front of someone else who really needs help and steal their funds.

Typical liberal action for sure. Self centered.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> There is a whole cook book about ways to use Ramen noodles. Probably because they are a staple for college kids.
> 
> Sometimes we use them instead of rice or Spaghetti .
> 
> Hey Joe. Ramen noodles are on sale this week for 4/1.00... You don't even need a coupon.



I prefer to eat real food, thanks.  

I'm still trying to get my head around Eagle thinking someone else paying for his scholarship to college (where he apparently never learned how to structure a sentence) was good but buying food for poor children is a terrible idea. 

Don't you go having you no abortions!


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a whole cook book about ways to use Ramen noodles. Probably because they are a staple for college kids.
> 
> Sometimes we use them instead of rice or Spaghetti .
> 
> Hey Joe. Ramen noodles are on sale this week for 4/1.00... You don't even need a coupon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to eat real food, thanks.
> 
> I'm still trying to get my head around Eagle thinking someone else paying for his scholarship to college (where he apparently never learned how to structure a sentence) was good but buying food for poor children is a terrible idea.
> 
> Don't you go having you no abortions!
Click to expand...


You food stampers are sure food snobs... For people who want others to foot the bill.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a whole cook book about ways to use Ramen noodles. Probably because they are a staple for college kids.
> 
> Sometimes we use them instead of rice or Spaghetti .
> 
> Hey Joe. Ramen noodles are on sale this week for 4/1.00... You don't even need a coupon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to eat real food, thanks.
> 
> I'm still trying to get my head around Eagle thinking someone else paying for his scholarship to college (where he apparently never learned how to structure a sentence) was good but buying food for poor children is a terrible idea.
> 
> Don't you go having you no abortions!
Click to expand...

LOL.

In Joe's mind he paid for it...................I've paid it back many times over............
I don't give a fuck on how un vew my postings..........................or my sentence structure.......

I excel in tech fields..........troubleshooting...............never met a circuit I repaired that gave a shit about my grammar.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a whole cook book about ways to use Ramen noodles. Probably because they are a staple for college kids.
> 
> Sometimes we use them instead of rice or Spaghetti .
> 
> Hey Joe. Ramen noodles are on sale this week for 4/1.00... You don't even need a coupon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I prefer to eat real food, thanks.
> 
> I'm still trying to get my head around Eagle thinking someone else paying for his scholarship to college (where he apparently never learned how to structure a sentence) was good but buying food for poor children is a terrible idea.
> 
> Don't you go having you no abortions!
Click to expand...

Silver spoon Joe?


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Nope. I excelled and qualified for a program...............And that is available to *all who tries* to excel in school, even these people you continually complain about. *and* I've paid it back over the years with all the taxes I've paid............100 times over................



But you didn't pay for it. Someone else did.  Someone else who paid taxes, not you at the time. And apparently, you got through four years of college without being able to master even simple grammar.

Or do you only like "socialism" that benefits you?



eagle1462010 said:


> Where did I say I'm gonna take food stamps away.........................That other voice pop up in your head again.



No, but apparently you didn't learn "Reading comprehension" in college, because I never said YOU'D take food stamps.

I just find it hilarious that you think the government paying for your college is perfectly okay, but dammit, they'd better not pay for food stamps for some poor kid who is only in this world because you Religious nuts made it difficult for his mother to get an abortion.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I excelled and qualified for a program...............And that is available to *all who tries* to excel in school, even these people you continually complain about. *and* I've paid it back over the years with all the taxes I've paid............100 times over................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you didn't pay for it. Someone else did.  Someone else who paid taxes, not you at the time. And apparently, you got through four years of college without being able to master even simple grammar.
> 
> Or do you only like "socialism" that benefits you?
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say I'm gonna take food stamps away.........................That other voice pop up in your head again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but apparently you didn't learn "Reading comprehension" in college, because I never said YOU'D take food stamps.
> 
> I just find it hilarious that you think the government paying for your college is perfectly okay, but dammit, they'd better not pay for food stamps for some poor kid who is only in this world because you Religious nuts made it difficult for his mother to get an abortion.
Click to expand...

I find it mo funny that you tank I said I'd take all da food away and low them thar to starve........................
Did you grow up with a Silver spoon Joe?


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Silver spoon Joe?



Naw, I paid for my college by JOINING THE MILITARY.  

Which I admit is a kind of government socialism I'm totally good with. 



eagle1462010 said:


> In Joe's mind he paid for it...................I've paid it back many times over............
> I don't give a fuck on how un vew my postings..........................or my sentence structure.......
> 
> I excel in tech fields..........troubleshooting...............never met a circuit I repaired that gave a shit about my grammar.



Guy, you didn't "pay it back".  Someone else paid for you to do it. That's the point. 



BlueGin said:


> Yeah. And bump in front of someone else who really needs help and steal their funds.
> 
> Typical liberal action for sure. Self centered.



But that's the point. You don't think ANYONE deserves those funds.  You think they are all living large buying steak and Lobster on their EBT Cards while they drive around in their Cadillac talking on their ObamaPhones... or whatever shit you heard on hate radio.


----------



## Wildman

JoeB131 said:


> *Horseshit. Nobody can feed a family of four on $50.00 a week.
> 
> Just doesn't happen.*



 just because you are a big spending liberliar, don't mean a good conservative woman can not do it, ever heard of finishing/reheating "leftovers" ? or do you/wife throw away "leftovers" ????

you liberfools are apathetic lot. 

BTW,  FOOL


----------



## Wildman

JoeB131 said:


> *So now all those poor people need is a computer and a printer...*



*now days, who does not ? you really aren't that stupid..., or are you ? i really do pity you liberfools. 
*


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silver spoon Joe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I paid for my college by JOINING THE MILITARY.
> 
> Which I admit is a kind of government socialism I'm totally good with.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Joe's mind he paid for it...................I've paid it back many times over............
> I don't give a fuck on how un vew my postings..........................or my sentence structure.......
> 
> I excel in tech fields..........troubleshooting...............never met a circuit I repaired that gave a shit about my grammar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, you didn't "pay it back".  Someone else paid for you to do it. That's the point.
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. And bump in front of someone else who really needs help and steal their funds.
> 
> Typical liberal action for sure. Self centered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's the point. You don't think ANYONE deserves those funds.  You think they are all living large buying steak and Lobster on their EBT Cards while they drive around in their Cadillac talking on their ObamaPhones... or whatever shit you heard on hate radio.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silver spoon Joe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I paid for my college by JOINING THE MILITARY.
> 
> Which I admit is a kind of government socialism I'm totally good with.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Joe's mind he paid for it...................I've paid it back many times over............
> I don't give a fuck on how un vew my postings..........................or my sentence structure.......
> 
> I excel in tech fields..........troubleshooting...............never met a circuit I repaired that gave a shit about my grammar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, you didn't "pay it back".  Someone else paid for you to do it. That's the point.
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. And bump in front of someone else who really needs help and steal their funds.
> 
> Typical liberal action for sure. Self centered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's the point. You don't think ANYONE deserves those funds.  You think they are all living large buying steak and Lobster on their EBT Cards while they drive around in their Cadillac talking on their ObamaPhones... or whatever shit you heard on hate radio.
Click to expand...

BS.  Your splitting hairs Joe...........and I did my time in the military as well..........the scholarship was ROTC Joe............I went from active duty to college Joe................but eventually working the jobs and staying with the electrical engineering degree did me in Joe.............and I served 6 years after rocking out of college...............the scholarship didn't include housing, or food, and I had a vehicle payment.........perhaps I could have done a few things different but alas when you are younger you do stupid things...........................and I went back to the fleet as an electrician.............and served mostly overseas for the entire 6 years including the Persian Gulf on 2 occasions...............

Served on 3 ships, and with my EE back ground I was fixing things no one else could troubleshoot............so yeah I paid my dues................
I had broken service Joe....................
Top it off I graduated Nuclear Power School 1st phase................lost that due to rocking out of college Joe..............

Now make fun of that as well............I don't care Joe...............I did my service and have paid that small amount money 100 times over by now.........and my extra training in COLLEGE helped me repair a lot of equipment and keep the ships I served on running...............3 ships Joe...................

So spare me your liberal BS.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silver spoon Joe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I paid for my college by JOINING THE MILITARY.
> 
> Which I admit is a kind of government socialism I'm totally good with.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Joe's mind he paid for it...................I've paid it back many times over............
> I don't give a fuck on how un vew my postings..........................or my sentence structure.......
> 
> I excel in tech fields..........troubleshooting...............never met a circuit I repaired that gave a shit about my grammar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, you didn't "pay it back".  Someone else paid for you to do it. That's the point.
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. And bump in front of someone else who really needs help and steal their funds.
> 
> Typical liberal action for sure. Self centered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's the point. You don't think ANYONE deserves those funds.  You think they are all living large buying steak and Lobster on their EBT Cards while they drive around in their Cadillac talking on their ObamaPhones... or whatever shit you heard on hate radio.
Click to expand...


Some sure. You just told me to LIE to get SNAP benefits I don t deserve.

Btw. Steak is on sale this week at Albertsons...buy one get one free. Great deals on Salmon and Shrimp too. Good time to use your EBT card.

I will let you know when steak and lobster tails go on sale for other stores. Hint: first Sunday of the month for Walmart usually. Others vary.


----------



## Wildman

eagle1462010 said:


> *Fetus parts are more than likely sold fro stem research...........*



*and colored baby brains go to make cosmetics, the ones that darken the white skin without getting a Sun tan.  *


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not illegal to donate tissue or body parts, including aborted fetus, for medical research.  The cost to remove, preserve, or transport can be chaged in the arrangment.
> the $100 is not for the sale but the costs for the expenses of the tissue.
> The transaction being discussed is not illegal, it is not an actual "sale" but the costs for the expenses
> 
> Once the fetal tissue is removed it is not longer up to the mother what happens to the tissue.  It up to the clinc/hospital to dispose or donate for research.
> 
> 
> 
> You say that is what it is for but I don't see expenses spoken about in the video.  What I see is a negotiation over price.
> 
> Tell me, how does costs for expenses change in a negotiation?  Costs are static - there would be no negotiation.
> 
> 
> Also, the last part of your statement is blatantly false.  It is NOT up to the clinic what happens to the tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no negotiation.  There was a discussion where the lying pieces of shit tried to get the doctor to discuss money for the tissue, and she refused because they do not sell tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 30-100 dollars, according to Nocatola. Lowball $100, according to "I Wanna Lambourghini". Enough to do a little better than breaking even, smile wink, Nocatola said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ten days later, 115 pages of posts, and you still lie.  What a disgusting piece of shitbyou are..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all in the videos, which I watched. Thank you, I will believe what drs. "Crush Above and Below The Thorax/Law is Open to Interpretation" Nocatola and "I Wanna Lambourghini I Don't Wanna Lowball the Price" said, and not an anonymous internet troll, thanks.
Click to expand...

You heard what you wanted to hear.


----------



## SassyIrishLass




----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say that is what it is for but I don't see expenses spoken about in the video.  What I see is a negotiation over price.
> 
> Tell me, how does costs for expenses change in a negotiation?  Costs are static - there would be no negotiation.
> 
> 
> Also, the last part of your statement is blatantly false.  It is NOT up to the clinic what happens to the tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> There was no negotiation.  There was a discussion where the lying pieces of shit tried to get the doctor to discuss money for the tissue, and she refused because they do not sell tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 30-100 dollars, according to Nocatola. Lowball $100, according to "I Wanna Lambourghini". Enough to do a little better than breaking even, smile wink, Nocatola said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ten days later, 115 pages of posts, and you still lie.  What a disgusting piece of shitbyou are..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all in the videos, which I watched. Thank you, I will believe what drs. "Crush Above and Below The Thorax/Law is Open to Interpretation" Nocatola and "I Wanna Lambourghini I Don't Wanna Lowball the Price" said, and not an anonymous internet troll, thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You heard what you wanted to hear.
Click to expand...

No, I heard what was said. Deny what was said and be called a lying, babykilling sycophant.


----------



## SassyIrishLass




----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know why that would be a conditional consideration, since one deals with standard of living and the other is life itself. But sure lets talk about welfare. Forget about the abuse of it on the part of citizens,(which needs to be part of the conversation) let's talk about the abuse coming from govt. an immense amount of taxpayer money goes into welfare, then you pay for a gigantic bureaucracy, that then doles out breadcrumbs to the needy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Corky, got to stop you right here because again, you are a retard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check it out, Low Income Assistance is only 5.3% of the Federal Budget.
> 
> Meanwhile, "White People" entitlements of Social Security and Medicare make up 33% of the budget.
> 
> So, no we aren't lavishing a bunch of money on poor people, contrary to what people like you want to think.
Click to expand...

That was my point that we aren't lavishing people with money. The chart is  from 2010 but take 5.3 percent of 17 trillion dollars, and that's just how over budget we are. How much money is being lost in this monstrous government to trickle breadcrumbs to the people?  The government just recorded a record high in this quarters revenue  yet we are still on track to be 20 trillion in debt at the end of this presidents term. And blame bush is not going to work after 7 years, especially when Obama is pretty much doing everything bush did, just a much greater level. Bush was bad, Obama is making it much worse


----------



## Cecilie1200

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> they catch a rather disgusting and illegal act with an undercover camera
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eating salad, drinking wine, and talking shop (unsettling for some people I know) with someone is not illegal.  However taping a conversation without the other persons consent is illegal in California.
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you not only condone illegal activities but
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still it is not illegal to donate tissue or for PP to act as a collection agent for research firms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We already covered this - she is negotiating compensation for the donations and compensation is illegal for profit (a notion backed by here rather insensitive comments).  Further it is illegal to change the procedure for the collection of said sample and she DIRECTLY points that out but then goes right on to say that she has no problem asking the doctor to do exactly that.  Have you even bothered to watch the damn video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The video doesn't prove Planned Parenthood is doing anything illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what parallel universe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Has anyone been charged ?
> 
> Is there an investigation ?
Click to expand...

 
Riiiiight.  It's only illegal if you get arrested.  And law enforcement DEFINITELY works that quickly.  

Hey, just out of curiosity, does your planet have an oxygen-based atmosphere like Earth's?


----------



## aris2chat

JoeB131 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe doesn't know AT LEAST 2 things:
> Government CAN'T Create Jobs.
> Greece is part of the European Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government can easily create jobs. They do it all the time.
> 
> Greece is one member of the EU. The other members are doing fine... better than we are.
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also Joe, the US CAN'T be failing because Obama is President and signing Executive Orders all by himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no, dummy. Obama can't fix the underlying problems we have in this country.  I kind of suspect they won't get solved until some of our elite are lined up against walls.
Click to expand...


It costs them more to create jobs than the private sector.  government jobs are not efficient for the economy


----------



## Mad Scientist

JoeB131 said:


> Greece is one member of the EU. The other members are doing fine... better than we are.


Eurostat - Tables Graphs and Maps Interface TGM table
All of the 28 EU Countries are *running a deficit* with the exception of:

Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Luxembourgh
Norway

Cumulative average Negative GDP of all Countries: -2.9%. Worse than the U.S. (If you believe the US Government stats)


----------



## aris2chat

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4. But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
> 
> I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Nobody can feed a family of four on $50.00 a week.
> 
> Just doesn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.
> 
> Know the stores that price match (Family Dollar Store and Walmart for example).
> 
> Use the coupons on your stores website,apps and in store fliers or that come in the mail. Target especially will have 5 dollar gift cards free with purchase of certain items ...example : Pantene products...you can combine them with manufacture coupons. I never pay more than .75/.99 cents for shampoo and conditioner. And they also have 5/10 dollars coupons off meat purchases of 25.00/50.00 once in awhile.
> 
> Albertsons will have 10.00 off 100.00 purchases once in awhile also.
> 
> Otherwise... I wait for the buy one get one deals at Albertsons or go early Sunday morning when Albertsons marks down the hamburger. Thursdays for Smiths
> 
> Want cheap fruit and veggies? Shop at Sprouts . They also have good sales prices on meat. Usually sausage and chicken kabobs.
> 
> Buy things like tea bags, salad dressing, hot dog /hamburger buns, honey and certain snacks like pretzels at Dollar Tree. Every once in awhile they will have frozen broccoli and cauliflower and frozen onion rings and fries.
> 
> And check your local farmers market. Here the hospitals have them once a week on Thursdays. Folks can use their EBT cards there.
> 
> You should never pay full price for anything if you don't have to.
Click to expand...


buy and use within a few days - 
99cent store have vegetable and dry goods
daily table for recently expired foods that are still good
buy low have a great selection of fruits and vegetable with wednesday specials
fresh and easy have mark down half price item section that are close to expiration
even vons and albertsons have markdown on items at half price for sushi, cheese, sliced deli items, and some meats 

walmart always seems to have good price.
shop and save
trade joe has very reasonable price for organic and more healthy and specialty food
Try oriental grocery stores for good prices on fish and vegetables.  Many fish are live in tanks so you know they are fresh.
farmer markets and flea markets for seasonal fruits and vegetables.
Pool resources with neighbors and friends for bulk items at cosco.
you can buy bulk items online as well
download coupons from online and check flyers

in some areas.....if you buy power goods like flour based items, if you get those tiny months in your area, put foods directly into the freezer for a few days, then take out put in a plastic ziploc bag and put in your pantry.  It kills any eggs than might be on the packaging.


----------



## aris2chat

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they should spend money to buy newspapers to find out where they can save 10 cents on a package of bacon... um, yeah. Right.
> 
> Because clearly, making big corporations rich is important.
> 
> Right.
> 
> and don't you go thinking about having no abortion! You go ahead and have kid #4 so we can look down on you when you whip out that EBT Card!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortions cost a fortune . And they take a toll on your mental and physical health.
> 
> If botched like the ones performed by your hero Kermit Gosnell... Your medical bills for reconstructive surgery and therapy will skyrocket.
Click to expand...


$400-500


----------



## aris2chat

cost of raising a child is $250,000+


----------



## BlueGin

aris2chat said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they should spend money to buy newspapers to find out where they can save 10 cents on a package of bacon... um, yeah. Right.
> 
> Because clearly, making big corporations rich is important.
> 
> Right.
> 
> and don't you go thinking about having no abortion! You go ahead and have kid #4 so we can look down on you when you whip out that EBT Card!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortions cost a fortune . And they take a toll on your mental and physical health.
> 
> If botched like the ones performed by your hero Kermit Gosnell... Your medical bills for reconstructive surgery and therapy will skyrocket.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> $400-500
Click to expand...


Yep. Closer to 500.00 or more. I agree


----------



## BlueGin

aris2chat said:


> cost of raising a child is $250,000+



That's about what reconstructive surgery and therapy would cost for a botched abortion.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no negotiation.  There was a discussion where the lying pieces of shit tried to get the doctor to discuss money for the tissue, and she refused because they do not sell tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> 30-100 dollars, according to Nocatola. Lowball $100, according to "I Wanna Lambourghini". Enough to do a little better than breaking even, smile wink, Nocatola said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ten days later, 115 pages of posts, and you still lie.  What a disgusting piece of shitbyou are..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all in the videos, which I watched. Thank you, I will believe what drs. "Crush Above and Below The Thorax/Law is Open to Interpretation" Nocatola and "I Wanna Lambourghini I Don't Wanna Lowball the Price" said, and not an anonymous internet troll, thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You heard what you wanted to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I heard what was said. Deny what was said and be called a lying, babykilling sycophant.
Click to expand...

Never killed anything.  You have apparently killed much of your brain.  Trailer dwelling anti-abortion methhead is a new one.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 30-100 dollars, according to Nocatola. Lowball $100, according to "I Wanna Lambourghini". Enough to do a little better than breaking even, smile wink, Nocatola said.
> 
> 
> 
> Ten days later, 115 pages of posts, and you still lie.  What a disgusting piece of shitbyou are..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's all in the videos, which I watched. Thank you, I will believe what drs. "Crush Above and Below The Thorax/Law is Open to Interpretation" Nocatola and "I Wanna Lambourghini I Don't Wanna Lowball the Price" said, and not an anonymous internet troll, thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You heard what you wanted to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I heard what was said. Deny what was said and be called a lying, babykilling sycophant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never killed anything.  You have apparently killed much of your brain.  Trailer dwelling anti-abortion methhead is a new one.
Click to expand...

I'm not pregnant, please don't mark me for harvest...


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely.  CMP is an unethical and needs to be investigated for illegal activity.
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, do you think that they need to be investigated for?
> 
> Getting video of PP affiliates trying to sell tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion Providers Should Take Legal Action Against the Center for Medical Progress Here s Why
> 
> CMP videotaped the conversations with Dr. Deborah Nucatola and Dr. Mary Gatter while they were each engaged in private discussions in restaurants. Nucatola’s conversation took place in California; although the location of Gatter’s is as yet unknown, she lives and works in California, which suggests that her meeting was also in the state. This fact is incredibly important, because it’s very likely that CMP violated California’s two-party consent wiretapping law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah, THAT'S the big concern here.
> 
> Can you even SPELL the word "priorities"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  Blind is literally blind in this issue.  As long as it supports killing the unborn apparently it cannot do anything wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a women is desperate enough, she will find a way if she does not have access to clinics or family planning. She can do permanent harm to herself and even die.  Why is saving the women a bad thing?  Why not being forced into a pregnancy before she is ready a bad thing?  Why is using what would be waste or fuel to help others wrong?
> 
> Morally doctors save the mother's life.  Doctor treat the patient in front of them, not one that is only a potential but not complete being.  Doctors save the life they can not those they know they cannot.
> 
> In a perfect world there would never be an unwanted pregnancy and a women would not conceive when she was fully ready to be a mother.
> 
> In a perfect world there would never be a shortage of organs or necessary need to study or use tissue for research.
> 
> In a perfect world there would be no want, no poverty, no suffering, no pain, no abuse, to danger............
> 
> We have never lived in a perfect world and possibly there will never be such a thing.
> 
> We deal with what we have and what can be done in the most logical way.
Click to expand...


Oh, puhleeze.  "We have to harvest and sell tissue from aborted babies without the knowledge or consent of the 'mother' because women might get back-alley abortions."

How many times were you dropped on your head as a child?  Be honest.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Jroc said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The law was already linked somewhere.
> And I didn't complain that the procedural methods of abortion were in violation of the law. The reality is that both the doctors talked about CHANGING the procedure in order to FACILITATE organ harvest. And THAT is against the law. You can't change a procedure for the sake of selling tissue or for any purpose except safety.
> 
> And the procedure they were choosing to change to was partial birth abortion...which is illegal.
> 
> 
> 
> someone posted the law earlier, it might have been you?  But my question about the law on not changing the organ donor's treatment, is so that Doctors do not take the organ donor off any of their life support, or medically treat them differently than a person dying who is not donating organs etc....  in other words, the dying organ donor's death would not be expedited or changed due to them being organ donors...
> 
> IS this law applicable to a fetus being aborted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If left up to you libs, women will get paid to get pregnant, so they can abort the pregnancy and then harvest the babies organs... You people are sick
Click to expand...


You know what's really scary?  When reproductive medicine gets more advanced, these filthy bastards will want to get women to donate their eggs so that they can deliberately grow babies in artificial wombs just so they can harvest them at will.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BlueGin said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is screwed this week. Lots of buy one get one deals and 2/1.00 deals on proteins.
> 
> ....
> Shrimp (5.99 lb)
> )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shrimp?  Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you never eat stir fry and rice?
> 
> Tell you what... I will start a thread for you and show you how to plan a menu for $ 99.91 this week with 19.09 left over to stock up on a few items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over priced.
> If I'm not mistake, that is what many get for a whole month with food stamps/EBT.  Then again there are places where that is dinner for one at a restaurant, or more without drinks
> americans waste so much food every day and most don't even compost
> Generators now can run on plant waste for electricity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4.  But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
> 
> I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.
Click to expand...


Good lord, I can feed my family for a week just on the staples I keep in stock at all times.  My weekly grocery shopping is mostly for perishables and sales.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4. But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
> 
> I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Nobody can feed a family of four on $50.00 a week.
> 
> Just doesn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.
> 
> Know the stores that price match (Family Dollar Store and Walmart for example).
> 
> Use the coupons on your stores website,apps and in store fliers or that come in the mail. Target especially will have 5 dollar gift cards free with purchase of certain items ...example : Pantene products...you can combine them with manufacture coupons. I never pay more than .75/.99 cents for shampoo and conditioner. And they also have 5/10 dollars coupons off meat purchases of 25.00/50.00 once in awhile.
> 
> Albertsons will have 10.00 off 100.00 purchases once in awhile also.
> 
> Otherwise... I wait for the buy one get one deals at Albertsons or go early Sunday morning when Albertsons marks down the hamburger. Thursdays for Smiths
> 
> Want cheap fruit and veggies? Shop at Sprouts . They also have good sales prices on meat. Usually sausage and chicken kabobs.
> 
> Buy things like tea bags, salad dressing, hot dog /hamburger buns, honey and certain snacks like pretzels at Dollar Tree. Every once in awhile they will have frozen broccoli and cauliflower and frozen onion rings and fries.
> 
> And check your local farmers market. Here the hospitals have them once a week on Thursdays. Folks can use their EBT cards there.
> 
> You should never pay full price for anything if you don't have to.
Click to expand...


Give me a good sale on something in-season, and I'll stock up and either freeze it, or can it.  Summer holidays are fantastic for meat sales, and you can fill your deep freeze and be good to go.  In-season produce?  Make with the canning jars and freezer bags.

This isn't rocket science, but it IS work, which I assume is where we're losing the lefties on the whole premise.


----------



## Cecilie1200

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again. Coupons can be pulled up on your free Obama phone. And they come in the mail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oooookay, frankly, I never get them.  I get a lot of sh it in the mail, but never that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Red Plum manufacture coupon inserts come with the store ads in the mail. And store coupons come with your grocery receipt ... both free.
Click to expand...


Shoot, hit the Internet.  The library has them for free use, and you can print out pages of free coupons from a million different coupon websites for $.10 a page.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Wildman said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Fetus parts are more than likely sold fro stem research...........*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *and colored baby brains go to make cosmetics, the ones that darken the white skin without getting a Sun tan.  *
Click to expand...


It's illegal to use fetal tissue in cosmetics, after it was found in the 80s that some companies were using fetal collagen in their products.  Yeah, it works, but back then, people considered that gross and barbaric.  Go figure.


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4. But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
> 
> I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Nobody can feed a family of four on $50.00 a week.
> 
> Just doesn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.
> 
> Know the stores that price match (Family Dollar Store and Walmart for example).
> 
> Use the coupons on your stores website,apps and in store fliers or that come in the mail. Target especially will have 5 dollar gift cards free with purchase of certain items ...example : Pantene products...you can combine them with manufacture coupons. I never pay more than .75/.99 cents for shampoo and conditioner. And they also have 5/10 dollars coupons off meat purchases of 25.00/50.00 once in awhile.
> 
> Albertsons will have 10.00 off 100.00 purchases once in awhile also.
> 
> Otherwise... I wait for the buy one get one deals at Albertsons or go early Sunday morning when Albertsons marks down the hamburger. Thursdays for Smiths
> 
> Want cheap fruit and veggies? Shop at Sprouts . They also have good sales prices on meat. Usually sausage and chicken kabobs.
> 
> Buy things like tea bags, salad dressing, hot dog /hamburger buns, honey and certain snacks like pretzels at Dollar Tree. Every once in awhile they will have frozen broccoli and cauliflower and frozen onion rings and fries.
> 
> And check your local farmers market. Here the hospitals have them once a week on Thursdays. Folks can use their EBT cards there.
> 
> You should never pay full price for anything if you don't have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> buy and use within a few days -
> 99cent store have vegetable and dry goods
> daily table for recently expired foods that are still good
> buy low have a great selection of fruits and vegetable with wednesday specials
> fresh and easy have mark down half price item section that are close to expiration
> even vons and albertsons have markdown on items at half price for sushi, cheese, sliced deli items, and some meats
> 
> walmart always seems to have good price.
> shop and save
> trade joe has very reasonable price for organic and more healthy and specialty food
> Try oriental grocery stores for good prices on fish and vegetables.  Many fish are live in tanks so you know they are fresh.
> farmer markets and flea markets for seasonal fruits and vegetables.
> Pool resources with neighbors and friends for bulk items at cosco.
> you can buy bulk items online as well
> download coupons from online and check flyers
> 
> in some areas.....if you buy power goods like flour based items, if you get those tiny months in your area, put foods directly into the freezer for a few days, then take out put in a plastic ziploc bag and put in your pantry.  It kills any eggs than might be on the packaging.
Click to expand...


I always take my dry goods directly out of the package and store them in glass or plastic containers for that purpose.  Freezers are excellent for killing any eggs, yes.


----------



## BlueGin

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is screwed this week. Lots of buy one get one deals and 2/1.00 deals on proteins.
> 
> ....
> Shrimp (5.99 lb)
> )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shrimp?  Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you never eat stir fry and rice?
> 
> Tell you what... I will start a thread for you and show you how to plan a menu for $ 99.91 this week with 19.09 left over to stock up on a few items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over priced.
> If I'm not mistake, that is what many get for a whole month with food stamps/EBT.  Then again there are places where that is dinner for one at a restaurant, or more without drinks
> americans waste so much food every day and most don't even compost
> Generators now can run on plant waste for electricity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4.  But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
> 
> I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good lord, I can feed my family for a week just on the staples I keep in stock at all times.  My weekly grocery shopping is mostly for perishables and sales.
Click to expand...


Same here. Anyone who can't stock up while being given 650.00 dollars a month deserves to starve. I spend at the most 250.00 and that includes pet food, paper products, makeup and haircare items.


----------



## koshergrl

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is screwed this week. Lots of buy one get one deals and 2/1.00 deals on proteins.
> 
> ....
> Shrimp (5.99 lb)
> )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shrimp?  Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you never eat stir fry and rice?
> 
> Tell you what... I will start a thread for you and show you how to plan a menu for $ 99.91 this week with 19.09 left over to stock up on a few items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over priced.
> If I'm not mistake, that is what many get for a whole month with food stamps/EBT.  Then again there are places where that is dinner for one at a restaurant, or more without drinks
> americans waste so much food every day and most don't even compost
> Generators now can run on plant waste for electricity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4.  But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
> 
> I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good lord, I can feed my family for a week just on the staples I keep in stock at all times.  My weekly grocery shopping is mostly for perishables and sales.
Click to expand...

Me too. I spend maybe 200 a month for a family of three. We eat well but believe me steak and burger aren't a daily thing.


----------



## JoeB131

Wildman said:


> just because you are a big spending liberliar, don't mean a good conservative woman can not do it, ever heard of finishing/reheating "leftovers" ? or do you/wife throw away "leftovers" ????
> 
> you liberfools are apathetic lot.



Okay, just because you are supplementing your diet with Road Kill doesn't mean anyone else does that....


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Some sure. You just told me to LIE to get SNAP benefits I don t deserve.
> 
> Btw. Steak is on sale this week at Albertsons...buy one get one free. Great deals on Salmon and Shrimp too. Good time to use your EBT card.
> 
> I will let you know when steak and lobster tails go on sale for other stores. Hint: first Sunday of the month for Walmart usually. Others vary.



I know, you guys have this whole fantasy about how people on Food Stamps live....


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> That was my point that we aren't lavishing people with money. The chart is from 2010 but take 5.3 percent of 17 trillion dollars, and that's just how over budget we are.



the federal budget isn't 17 Trillion dollars, Corky.  

The Federal Budget in 2010 was 3.5 Trillion.  

2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

But you poor people better not be getting you no abortions!


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> cost of raising a child is $250,000+
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's about what reconstructive surgery and therapy would cost for a botched abortion.
Click to expand...


except those almost never happen unless it's in a an anti-Choice state like PA where you have back alley butchers like Gosnell.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> Me too. I spend maybe 200 a month for a family of three. We eat well but believe me steak and burger aren't a daily thing.



No but I'll guessing Possum is.


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shrimp?  Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> What you never eat stir fry and rice?
> 
> Tell you what... I will start a thread for you and show you how to plan a menu for $ 99.91 this week with 19.09 left over to stock up on a few items.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Over priced.
> If I'm not mistake, that is what many get for a whole month with food stamps/EBT.  Then again there are places where that is dinner for one at a restaurant, or more without drinks
> americans waste so much food every day and most don't even compost
> Generators now can run on plant waste for electricity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4.  But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
> 
> I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good lord, I can feed my family for a week just on the staples I keep in stock at all times.  My weekly grocery shopping is mostly for perishables and sales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me too. I spend maybe 200 a month for a family of three. We eat well but believe me steak and burger aren't a daily thing.
Click to expand...


What's up with the freaking price of hamburger, by the way?  I buy ground turkey because it's cheaper.  They got gold-plated cows or something?


----------



## koshergrl

Cecilie1200 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you never eat stir fry and rice?
> 
> Tell you what... I will start a thread for you and show you how to plan a menu for $ 99.91 this week with 19.09 left over to stock up on a few items.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over priced.
> If I'm not mistake, that is what many get for a whole month with food stamps/EBT.  Then again there are places where that is dinner for one at a restaurant, or more without drinks
> americans waste so much food every day and most don't even compost
> Generators now can run on plant waste for electricity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4.  But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
> 
> I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good lord, I can feed my family for a week just on the staples I keep in stock at all times.  My weekly grocery shopping is mostly for perishables and sales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me too. I spend maybe 200 a month for a family of three. We eat well but believe me steak and burger aren't a daily thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's up with the freaking price of hamburger, by the way?  I buy ground turkey because it's cheaper.  They got gold-plated cows or something?
Click to expand...

I don't know but it's cheaper to buy sirloin or roast and grind your own. It's better, too.  I haven't done it yet though I did buy a grinder just for that purpose.


----------



## Faun

Cecilie1200 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
Click to expand...

There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Faun said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
Click to expand...


"minimal" fees are negotiable? LMAO


----------



## Faun

SassyIrishLass said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "minimal" fees are negotiable? LMAO
Click to expand...

They can be when you don't know how much the expenses are. She can't even afford a tune up on a Lamborghini, no less purchasing one, making a few dollars on such a transaction.


----------



## HenryBHough

Who in Hell sells parts of their baby to buy CAR parts.....


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was my point that we aren't lavishing people with money. The chart is from 2010 but take 5.3 percent of 17 trillion dollars, and that's just how over budget we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the federal budget isn't 17 Trillion dollars, Corky.
> 
> The Federal Budget in 2010 was 3.5 Trillion.
> 
> 2010 United States federal budget - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> But you poor people better not be getting you no abortions!
Click to expand...

That's not the point, and I said that's the current deficit. Still doesn't stop the point that the government is highly inefficient, and only growing it's inefficiency. You want to really help the people your talking about, then get on board with streamlining govt.


----------



## eagle1462010

koshergrl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over priced.
> If I'm not mistake, that is what many get for a whole month with food stamps/EBT.  Then again there are places where that is dinner for one at a restaurant, or more without drinks
> americans waste so much food every day and most don't even compost
> Generators now can run on plant waste for electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4.  But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
> 
> I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good lord, I can feed my family for a week just on the staples I keep in stock at all times.  My weekly grocery shopping is mostly for perishables and sales.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me too. I spend maybe 200 a month for a family of three. We eat well but believe me steak and burger aren't a daily thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's up with the freaking price of hamburger, by the way?  I buy ground turkey because it's cheaper.  They got gold-plated cows or something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know but it's cheaper to buy sirloin or roast and grind your own. It's better, too.  I haven't done it yet though I did buy a grinder just for that purpose.
Click to expand...

We bought the grinder for that very reason..............Works well at that.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> That's not the point, and I said that's the current deficit. Still doesn't stop the point that the government is highly inefficient, and only growing it's inefficiency. You want to really help the people your talking about, then get on board with streamlining govt.



I could think of much better ways to "Streamline" government than taking food out of the mouths of poor children. 

Let's start with defense.  Withdraw all our troops out of every country in the world unless those countries want to pay us for them being there. 

Then let's stop giving out Corporate Welfare and huge tax breaks to the rich.  Obama rolled back Bush's tax giveaways to the Rich and the Deficit was cut in half. 

We could also means-test social security and Medicare.  If you have a pension and a 401K paying you a huge amount of money, you don't need social security.


----------



## FA_Q2

Cecilie1200 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I usually spend about 40.00/50.00 a week for a family of 4. But we were out of a lot... and since JoeB said it couldn't be done... I took up the challenge.
> 
> I guess Joe assumes people use up 100% of their food stuffs every week and don't stock up. Which isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  Nobody can feed a family of four on $50.00 a week.
> 
> Just doesn't happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> Watch your ads. Buy things when they go on sale and know what days your supermarket marks down their meat.
> 
> Know the stores that price match (Family Dollar Store and Walmart for example).
> 
> Use the coupons on your stores website,apps and in store fliers or that come in the mail. Target especially will have 5 dollar gift cards free with purchase of certain items ...example : Pantene products...you can combine them with manufacture coupons. I never pay more than .75/.99 cents for shampoo and conditioner. And they also have 5/10 dollars coupons off meat purchases of 25.00/50.00 once in awhile.
> 
> Albertsons will have 10.00 off 100.00 purchases once in awhile also.
> 
> Otherwise... I wait for the buy one get one deals at Albertsons or go early Sunday morning when Albertsons marks down the hamburger. Thursdays for Smiths
> 
> Want cheap fruit and veggies? Shop at Sprouts . They also have good sales prices on meat. Usually sausage and chicken kabobs.
> 
> Buy things like tea bags, salad dressing, hot dog /hamburger buns, honey and certain snacks like pretzels at Dollar Tree. Every once in awhile they will have frozen broccoli and cauliflower and frozen onion rings and fries.
> 
> And check your local farmers market. Here the hospitals have them once a week on Thursdays. Folks can use their EBT cards there.
> 
> You should never pay full price for anything if you don't have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a good sale on something in-season, and I'll stock up and either freeze it, or can it.  Summer holidays are fantastic for meat sales, and you can fill your deep freeze and be good to go.  In-season produce?  Make with the canning jars and freezer bags.
> 
> This isn't rocket science, *but it IS work*, which I assume is where we're losing the lefties on the whole premise.
Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head.

They think that people do not deserve to be put through the trouble of actually managing the resources that they use.  You, on the other hand, just have to deal.

It is asinine.


----------



## evince

todays right want our government torn assunder


----------



## JoeB131

FA_Q2 said:


> Hit the nail on the head.
> 
> They think that people do not deserve to be put through the trouble of actually managing the resources that they use. You, on the other hand, just have to deal.
> 
> It is asinine.



Another Clueless White Person heard from.  

Hey, guy, it's kind of hard to "manage" your shopping when you don't have a car, and the only store that is selling groceries is run by immigrants who sell expired food at exorbitant prices.  That's why those stores are always the first to get looted and burned when there's a riot like we see in LA or Ferguson. 

The big chain stores don't put branches in these neighborhoods.


----------



## aris2chat

JoeB131 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hit the nail on the head.
> 
> They think that people do not deserve to be put through the trouble of actually managing the resources that they use. You, on the other hand, just have to deal.
> 
> It is asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Clueless White Person heard from.
> 
> Hey, guy, it's kind of hard to "manage" your shopping when you don't have a car, and the only store that is selling groceries is run by immigrants who sell expired food at exorbitant prices.  That's why those stores are always the first to get looted and burned when there's a riot like we see in LA or Ferguson.
> 
> The big chain stores don't put branches in these neighborhoods.
Click to expand...


not cost efficient if items are pilfered or stores are robbed and burned

If they want stores they need to get rid of the crime


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JoeB131 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hit the nail on the head.
> 
> They think that people do not deserve to be put through the trouble of actually managing the resources that they use. You, on the other hand, just have to deal.
> 
> It is asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Clueless White Person heard from.
> 
> Hey, guy, it's kind of hard to "manage" your shopping when you don't have a car, and the only store that is selling groceries is run by immigrants who sell expired food at exorbitant prices.  That's why those stores are always the first to get looted and burned when there's a riot like we see in LA or Ferguson.
> 
> The big chain stores don't put branches in these neighborhoods.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!

Well, in fact, where one _doesn't have a car, and "the Only Store" has exorbitant prices, '_managing' one's shopping is precisely what one does.  

ROFLMNAO!  You can NOT hide a *dumbass.*


----------



## JoeB131

aris2chat said:


> not cost efficient if items are pilfered or stores are robbed and burned
> 
> If they want stores they need to get rid of the crime



Yeah, clearly they don't understand capitalism like white people do, taking the big weenie in the ass with a smile.


----------



## JoeB131

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Well, in fact, where one _doesn't have a car, and "the Only Store" has exorbitant prices, '_managing' one's shopping is precisely what one does.
> 
> ROFLMNAO! You can NOT hide a *dumbass.*



So have you always been a retard who can't understand what he just read?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JoeB131 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Well, in fact, where one _doesn't have a car, and "the Only Store" has exorbitant prices, '_managing' one's shopping is precisely what one does.
> 
> ROFLMNAO! You can NOT hide a *dumbass.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So have you always been a retard who can't understand what he just read?
Click to expand...


OH!  How sweet.  
_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## aris2chat

JoeB131 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> not cost efficient if items are pilfered or stores are robbed and burned
> 
> If they want stores they need to get rid of the crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, clearly they don't understand capitalism like white people do, taking the big weenie in the ass with a smile.
Click to expand...


can't force a business to open in a neighborhood just to loose money.
if the people want to have stores and work move into their areas they need to take actions to improve the neighborhood.  If they won't let the police get rid of crime they will have to do it themselves.  Get rid of garbage, put a stop to the gangs and drugs.  keep kids in schools.  
get involved in community affairs and take some pride in their community.
Stores will located where they will make money.  If people can't care for their streets, or let police do it, they will have to walk or take a bus to do their shopping.
They don't get businesses to move it without the right incentives.  They have to take back their streets.
Some buildings will have to come down to make way for larger stories and access for parking.  Many tenets will have to move.

What is the alternative?  A central outlet for delivery of items ordered online?  Cash in hand to pay for what they order?  Even that would be a risk if the neighborhood is a hotbed for crime.

It is not the businesses but the people who have to take action.


----------



## FA_Q2

aris2chat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> not cost efficient if items are pilfered or stores are robbed and burned
> 
> If they want stores they need to get rid of the crime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, clearly they don't understand capitalism like white people do, taking the big weenie in the ass with a smile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can't force a business to open in a neighborhood just to loose money.
> if the people want to have stores and work move into their areas they need to take actions to improve the neighborhood.  If they won't let the police get rid of crime they will have to do it themselves.  Get rid of garbage, put a stop to the gangs and drugs.  keep kids in schools.
> get involved in community affairs and take some pride in their community.
> Stores will located where they will make money.  If people can't care for their streets, or let police do it, they will have to walk or take a bus to do their shopping.
> They don't get businesses to move it without the right incentives.  They have to take back their streets.
> Some buildings will have to come down to make way for larger stories and access for parking.  Many tenets will have to move.
> 
> What is the alternative?  A central outlet for delivery of items ordered online?  Cash in hand to pay for what they order?  Even that would be a risk if the neighborhood is a hotbed for crime.
> 
> It is not the businesses but the people who have to take action.
Click to expand...

That is why the term 'food desert' is so asinine.  They look at the fact that there are no stores offering a product in an area and ask how they can change that without actually asking WHY they are not there in the first place.

All stores have shrink as well.  It is not the shrink but the fact that there is no demand - simple as that.  McDonalds is simpler, faster and a bad idea so where do people that tend to make poor decisions go?  Not to the supermarket...


----------



## JoeB131

FA_Q2 said:


> That is why the term 'food desert' is so asinine. They look at the fact that there are no stores offering a product in an area and ask how they can change that without actually asking WHY they are not there in the first place.
> 
> All stores have shrink as well. It is not the shrink but the fact that there is no demand - simple as that. McDonalds is simpler, faster and a bad idea so where do people that tend to make poor decisions go? Not to the supermarket...



You can't spend food stamps at the McDonalds... 

ANd, no, it isn't asinine. The thing is, big chains have made a decision to not serve certain areas.  They should be required to serve all communities.


----------



## JoeB131

aris2chat said:


> can't force a business to open in a neighborhood just to loose money.



Sure you can.  We just don't do it.  But you can pass laws saying that big chains have to serve all communities if they want to business in a state.  That's why we have zoning laws.  

Want to open your new store in Evanston? You'd better have a new corresponding store on the South Side.  Easy-peasy.  



aris2chat said:


> What is the alternative? A central outlet for delivery of items ordered online? Cash in hand to pay for what they order? Even that would be a risk if the neighborhood is a hotbed for crime.
> 
> It is not the businesses but the people who have to take action.



I have a pretty simple solution.  Have a chain of government run stores that will serve those neighborhoods.  They'll get a subsidy the big stores don't get and they can sell food cheaper. 

Ooooh. Wait.  The Rich wouldn't like that.


----------



## aris2chat

JoeB131 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why the term 'food desert' is so asinine. They look at the fact that there are no stores offering a product in an area and ask how they can change that without actually asking WHY they are not there in the first place.
> 
> All stores have shrink as well. It is not the shrink but the fact that there is no demand - simple as that. McDonalds is simpler, faster and a bad idea so where do people that tend to make poor decisions go? Not to the supermarket...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't spend food stamps at the McDonalds...
> 
> ANd, no, it isn't asinine. The thing is, big chains have made a decision to not serve certain areas.  They should be required to serve all communities.
Click to expand...


but you can at jack in the box, at least some of them.  I've seen the signs in the windows

Fast Food Restaurants That Accept Ebt Card Jack In The Box in Long Beach California with Reviews Ratings - YP.com


----------



## aris2chat

JoeB131 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> can't force a business to open in a neighborhood just to loose money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can.  We just don't do it.  But you can pass laws saying that big chains have to serve all communities if they want to business in a state.  That's why we have zoning laws.
> 
> Want to open your new store in Evanston? You'd better have a new corresponding store on the South Side.  Easy-peasy.
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the alternative? A central outlet for delivery of items ordered online? Cash in hand to pay for what they order? Even that would be a risk if the neighborhood is a hotbed for crime.
> 
> It is not the businesses but the people who have to take action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a pretty simple solution.  Have a chain of government run stores that will serve those neighborhoods.  They'll get a subsidy the big stores don't get and they can sell food cheaper.
> 
> Ooooh. Wait.  The Rich wouldn't like that.
Click to expand...


Socialism

Businesses for profit and should be encouraged to create jobs and pay taxes to keep the government running.
You start demanding where and when they can have stores that will loose money you will discourage business altogether 

Is government going to take over the private sector?  It that want the founding father imagined?


----------



## JoeB131

aris2chat said:


> but you can at jack in the box, at least some of them. I've seen the signs in the windows
> 
> Fast Food Restaurants That Accept Ebt Card Jack In The Box in Long Beach California with Reviews Ratings - YP.com



And if you want to talk about not allowing that, I'm good with that.  



aris2chat said:


> Socialism
> 
> Businesses for profit and should be encouraged to create jobs and pay taxes to keep the government running.
> You start demanding where and when they can have stores that will loose money you will discourage business altogether
> 
> Is government going to take over the private sector? It that want the founding father imagined?



What makes you think I give a FUCK what a bunch of old Slave-raping assholes would have thought about something.  

Here's the thing. Our agriculture system is ALREADY socialist. Farming is subsidized, inspections are run by the government because the industry really can't be trusted to police itself, and the reason we have "Food Stamps" to start with is because you need to artificially keep the demand for food high so there can be a profit in growing it.  Otherwise, you have shit like THIS happening. 







So here's a crazy idea. We've already socialized demand and production, why not socialize distribution.  Have government stores in your "Food Deserts" that sell food at a discount. 

Here was the thing.  When I was in the National Guard, one of the big selling points was that part time soldiers could go up to the PX at Fort Sheridan and get tax-free, subsidized products cheaper than driving to a Jewel-Osco.


----------



## Bobby1250




----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the point, and I said that's the current deficit. Still doesn't stop the point that the government is highly inefficient, and only growing it's inefficiency. You want to really help the people your talking about, then get on board with streamlining govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could think of much better ways to "Streamline" government than taking food out of the mouths of poor children.
> 
> Let's start with defense.  Withdraw all our troops out of every country in the world unless those countries want to pay us for them being there.
> 
> Then let's stop giving out Corporate Welfare and huge tax breaks to the rich.  Obama rolled back Bush's tax giveaways to the Rich and the Deficit was cut in half.
> 
> We could also means-test social security and Medicare.  If you have a pension and a 401K paying you a huge amount of money, you don't need social security.
Click to expand...

Ahh some common ground, yes get those troops out, make the other NATO nations spend as much as they are required to for their own defense instead of relying on us. Also don't give billions of dollars to countries who openly hate us, or are just bad dictators and people. Stop propping them up.

Stop corporate welfare, which Obama does more than bush. Ever hear of stimulus, bailouts, solindra? And there's another form of corporate welfare that comes in the form of regulation. Where only the big dogs can afford to operate, like Dodd frank. Or laws that make citizens pay for things with out choice, ACA, the common core tests (which those companies are making billions), etc. And remember Obama added what like 67 new lobbyist. And deficit did not get cut in half if it went up more than all the previous presidents combined.  We lost our shit when it went up to 6 trillion with bush. 

The means test for social security I can see, but then it just becomes welfare essentially, especially when you pay a piss ton in your whole life with the expectation of getting some back in the end. But I could see that. 

And there is a tonof ridiculous spending going on in the govt, half a mill on giving rabbits Swedish massages, couple mill euthanizing endangered turtles, swat team for the dept of education and any other govt program that does not need one. 

And there needs to be a flat tax, get this stupid loophole filled code out if there. If your for profit, you pay up


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JoeB131 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> can't force a business to open in a neighborhood just to loose money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you can.
Click to expand...


You're an imbecile.  And there's really nothing more to it, than that.


----------



## JoeB131

Congrats, guy, you managed to hit the all the high points of the Talk Radio Retard theme song...



sakinago said:


> Stop corporate welfare, which Obama does more than bush. Ever hear of stimulus, bailouts, solindra?



i think your whining about Solyndra would be great if you could spell the name of the company and knew the facts.  Like the payments to that group of companies were 1) designed with the expectation some would fail, 2) Collectively actually realized a profit for the government as the companies that did work out paid back their grants with interest.  



sakinago said:


> And there's another form of corporate welfare that comes in the form of regulation.



yeah, we should let the MARKET decide whether big corporations poison us or not. 



sakinago said:


> The means test for social security I can see, but then it just becomes welfare essentially, especially when you pay a piss ton in your whole life with the expectation of getting some back in the end. But I could see that.



Yes, it essentially becomes welfare.  If you live to be  72, you get everything you paid into back. But there's no good reason to pay rich people social security.  They don't need it. 



sakinago said:


> And there is a tonof ridiculous spending going on in the govt, half a mill on giving rabbits Swedish massages, couple mill euthanizing endangered turtles, swat team for the dept of education and any other govt program that does not need one.



Yes, all the other things that they misrepresent... I'm surprised you didn't include the mythical treadmills for shrimp that never happened. 



sakinago said:


> And there needs to be a flat tax, get this stupid loophole filled code out if there. If your for profit, you pay up



no, we don't need yet another scheme to give tax cuts tot he rich. The rich need to pay their fair share.


----------



## FA_Q2

aris2chat said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why the term 'food desert' is so asinine. They look at the fact that there are no stores offering a product in an area and ask how they can change that without actually asking WHY they are not there in the first place.
> 
> All stores have shrink as well. It is not the shrink but the fact that there is no demand - simple as that. McDonalds is simpler, faster and a bad idea so where do people that tend to make poor decisions go? Not to the supermarket...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't spend food stamps at the McDonalds...
> 
> ANd, no, it isn't asinine. The thing is, big chains have made a decision to not serve certain areas.  They should be required to serve all communities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> but you can at jack in the box, at least some of them.  I've seen the signs in the windows
> 
> Fast Food Restaurants That Accept Ebt Card Jack In The Box in Long Beach California with Reviews Ratings - YP.com
Click to expand...

To be fair EBT does not equal SNAP.

The SNAP money goes on the EBT card but it is more controlled than the straight out cash benefits that are offered through other 'welfare' programs.  That, of course, does not really address the point I was making anyway though and JoeB tried to sidestep.  The fact that the problem is in the bad decisions and not in the money given.  

More money just means more ability to make piss poor decisions and does not address the problem in the first place.


----------



## JoeB131

FA_Q2 said:


> To be fair EBT does not equal SNAP.
> 
> The SNAP money goes on the EBT card but it is more controlled than the straight out cash benefits that are offered through other 'welfare' programs. That, of course, does not really address the point I was making anyway though and JoeB tried to sidestep. The fact that the problem is in the bad decisions and not in the money given.
> 
> More money just means more ability to make piss poor decisions and does not address the problem in the first place.



yes, in Conservative Land, people are poor because of "poor decisions". 

Like having kids when they should get abortions.  Oh, wait, no, conservatives don't want to let the poor (or anyone else) have abortions. 

And clearly, they can't jump into their SUV's and drive 10 miles to get to the Jewel Osco like white people can.   They have to go to the corner market run by Arabs or Koreans that gouge them on basic food stuffs and don't remove expired product from the shelves.  But that's their own poor decision making, you see... not  system of institutional racism. 

Clueless White People Sure are Clueless.


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair EBT does not equal SNAP.
> 
> The SNAP money goes on the EBT card but it is more controlled than the straight out cash benefits that are offered through other 'welfare' programs. That, of course, does not really address the point I was making anyway though and JoeB tried to sidestep. The fact that the problem is in the bad decisions and not in the money given.
> 
> More money just means more ability to make piss poor decisions and does not address the problem in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, in Conservative Land, people are poor because of "poor decisions".
> 
> Like having kids when they should get abortions.  Oh, wait, no, conservatives don't want to let the poor (or anyone else) have abortions.
> 
> And clearly, they can't jump into their SUV's and drive 10 miles to get to the Jewel Osco like white people can.   They have to go to the corner market run by Arabs or Koreans that gouge them on basic food stuffs and don't remove expired product from the shelves.  But that's their own poor decision making, you see... not  system of institutional racism.
> 
> Clueless White People Sure are Clueless.
Click to expand...

Josef Mengele and Margaret Sanger would be so proud of PP.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Josef Mengele and Margaret Sanger would be so proud of PP.



Yawn, guy. 

I'll take your concern about Fetuses more seriously when you actually start showing concern for kids that have been born beyond "Let them starve".


----------



## gipper

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Josef Mengele and Margaret Sanger would be so proud of PP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy.
> 
> I'll take your concern about Fetuses more seriously when you actually start showing concern for kids that have been born beyond "Let them starve".
Click to expand...

Another idiotic post from an idiot...straight out of the PP handbook.

Do you ever tire of posting left wing cliches?

Nothing wrong with killing babies and selling their body parts...in the small minds of leftists.


----------



## JoeB131

gipper said:


> Another idiotic post from an idiot...straight out of the PP handbook.
> 
> Do you ever tire of posting left wing cliches?
> 
> Nothing wrong with killing babies and selling their body parts...in the small minds of leftists.



Except no one is selling anything and fetuses aren't "babies".  

It's only a baby if you want it.  It's "That thing I need to take care of on Tuesday" if you don't.


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Josef Mengele and Margaret Sanger would be so proud of PP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, guy.
> 
> I'll take your concern about Fetuses more seriously when you actually start showing concern for kids that have been born beyond "Let them starve".
Click to expand...



there are no kids starving in this country boy. Why do we continually ship in poor people form other countries as you leftist push to slaughter our on own?


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> there are no kids starving in this country boy. Why do we continually ship in poor people form other countries as you leftist push to slaughter our on own?



Not that I really expect to have a conversation with you, Roid Rage, but here's the thing. 

I would LOVE to reduce the number of abortions.  But you do that by having more social programs, not less.   France has universal health care, paid family leave, and even civil servants who help new parents with chores for the first few months.   they have only 40% of the abortions we have, per capita, even though the government pays for abortions for the first 12 weeks. 

But, um, yeah, there really are kids starving in the United States. 

Child Hunger Poverty Fact Sheet Feeding America 

*Food Insecurity*


15.8 million children lived in food-insecure households in 2013._
[*]Twenty percent or more of the child population in 38 states and D.C. lived in food-insecure households in 2013, according to the most recent data available. The District of Columbia (31%) and Mississippi (29%) had the highest rates of children in households without consistent access to food.[ii]
[*]In 2013, the top five states with the highest rate of food-insecure children under 18 were D.C., Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Georgia.[iii]
[*]In 2013, the top five states with the lowest rate of food-insecure children under 18 were North Dakota, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Virginia.[iv]
_


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no kids starving in this country boy. Why do we continually ship in poor people form other countries as you leftist push to slaughter our on own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I really expect to have a conversation with you, Roid Rage, but here's the thing.
> 
> I would LOVE to reduce the number of abortions.  But you do that by having more social programs, not less.   France has universal health care, paid family leave, and even civil servants who help new parents with chores for the first few months.   they have only 40% of the abortions we have, per capita, even though the government pays for abortions for the first 12 weeks.
> 
> But, um, yeah, there really are kids starving in the United States.
> 
> Child Hunger Poverty Fact Sheet Feeding America
> 
> *Food Insecurity*
> 
> 
> 15.8 million children lived in food-insecure households in 2013._
> [*]Twenty percent or more of the child population in 38 states and D.C. lived in food-insecure households in 2013, according to the most recent data available. The District of Columbia (31%) and Mississippi (29%) had the highest rates of children in households without consistent access to food.[ii]
> [*]In 2013, the top five states with the highest rate of food-insecure children under 18 were D.C., Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Georgia.[iii]
> [*]In 2013, the top five states with the lowest rate of food-insecure children under 18 were North Dakota, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Virginia.[iv]_
Click to expand...



Please.... With all the government program food stamps no kids are starving.Do you find it funny Washington D.C. is on the list  while it is the riches area of the country?, as they are wasting tax payers money on their corny bullshit? but you want more of it. Kids dont starve here sorry fraud


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people are more opposed to using animals for research than they are about using unborn humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as an "unborn human".
> 
> And, yes, animal research is cruel because it often subjects the animal to extended pain, with no real benefit. (what works on an animal won't necessarily work on a person.)
Click to expand...

Just what IS growing in a pregnant woman, a zebra?


----------



## FA_Q2

Jroc said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> there are no kids starving in this country boy. Why do we continually ship in poor people form other countries as you leftist push to slaughter our on own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I really expect to have a conversation with you, Roid Rage, but here's the thing.
> 
> I would LOVE to reduce the number of abortions.  But you do that by having more social programs, not less.   France has universal health care, paid family leave, and even civil servants who help new parents with chores for the first few months.   they have only 40% of the abortions we have, per capita, even though the government pays for abortions for the first 12 weeks.
> 
> But, um, yeah, there really are kids starving in the United States.
> 
> Child Hunger Poverty Fact Sheet Feeding America
> 
> *Food Insecurity*
> 
> 
> 15.8 million children lived in food-insecure households in 2013._
> [*]Twenty percent or more of the child population in 38 states and D.C. lived in food-insecure households in 2013, according to the most recent data available. The District of Columbia (31%) and Mississippi (29%) had the highest rates of children in households without consistent access to food.[ii]
> [*]In 2013, the top five states with the highest rate of food-insecure children under 18 were D.C., Mississippi, Arkansas, New Mexico, and Georgia.[iii]
> [*]In 2013, the top five states with the lowest rate of food-insecure children under 18 were North Dakota, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Massachusetts, and Virginia.[iv]_
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please.... With all the government program food stamps no kids are starving.Do you find it funny Washington D.C. is on the list  while it is the riches area of the country?, as they are wasting tax payers money on their corny bullshit? but you want more of it. Kids dont starve here sorry fraud
Click to expand...

That is why the new term 'food insecurity' was invented.  Food is available everywhere but to ensure the numbers reflect what they need them to (justification for the bureaucratic nightmare) food insecurity was created rather than hunger.  Interestingly enough, those food insecure households have rather high rates of obesity.

Because, you know, racism or some such according to the resident idiot - joe.  Couldn't be poor decision making.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> Congrats, guy, you managed to hit the all the high points of the Talk Radio Retard theme song...
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop corporate welfare, which Obama does more than bush. Ever hear of stimulus, bailouts, solindra?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think your whining about Solyndra would be great if you could spell the name of the company and knew the facts.  Like the payments to that group of companies were 1) designed with the expectation some would fail, 2) Collectively actually realized a profit for the government as the companies that did work out paid back their grants with interest.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there's another form of corporate welfare that comes in the form of regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, we should let the MARKET decide whether big corporations poison us or not.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> The means test for social security I can see, but then it just becomes welfare essentially, especially when you pay a piss ton in your whole life with the expectation of getting some back in the end. But I could see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it essentially becomes welfare.  If you live to be  72, you get everything you paid into back. But there's no good reason to pay rich people social security.  They don't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is a tonof ridiculous spending going on in the govt, half a mill on giving rabbits Swedish massages, couple mill euthanizing endangered turtles, swat team for the dept of education and any other govt program that does not need one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, all the other things that they misrepresent... I'm surprised you didn't include the mythical treadmills for shrimp that never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there needs to be a flat tax, get this stupid loophole filled code out if there. If your for profit, you pay up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, we don't need yet another scheme to give tax cuts tot he rich. The rich need to pay their fair share.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> Congrats, guy, you managed to hit the all the high points of the Talk Radio Retard theme song...
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop corporate welfare, which Obama does more than bush. Ever hear of stimulus, bailouts, solindra?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think your whining about Solyndra would be great if you could spell the name of the company and knew the facts.  Like the payments to that group of companies were 1) designed with the expectation some would fail, 2) Collectively actually realized a profit for the government as the companies that did work out paid back their grants with interest.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there's another form of corporate welfare that comes in the form of regulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah, we should let the MARKET decide whether big corporations poison us or not.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> The means test for social security I can see, but then it just becomes welfare essentially, especially when you pay a piss ton in your whole life with the expectation of getting some back in the end. But I could see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it essentially becomes welfare.  If you live to be  72, you get everything you paid into back. But there's no good reason to pay rich people social security.  They don't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is a tonof ridiculous spending going on in the govt, half a mill on giving rabbits Swedish massages, couple mill euthanizing endangered turtles, swat team for the dept of education and any other govt program that does not need one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, all the other things that they misrepresent... I'm surprised you didn't include the mythical treadmills for shrimp that never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there needs to be a flat tax, get this stupid loophole filled code out if there. If your for profit, you pay up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, we don't need yet another scheme to give tax cuts tot he rich. The rich need to pay their fair share.
Click to expand...

Haha coming from the party that invented talking points and fake arguments. I'm sorry but you are not capable of objectivity, so I'll try a different tact. What is your definition of rich, and what is your definition of "fair share" ? Fair share by the way most definitely a buzz word coming from the guy slinging accusations of talking points, and that one party hates the blacks and poor, and especially the poor blacks. And that picture you posted, I assume that's from the deflationary Great Depression?  And if so I'll quote a guy who saw it coming 10 years earlier with the rise of progressive policies. 

And the gods of the market tumbled, and their smooth tongue wizards withdrew, and the hearts of the meanest we're humbled, and began to believe it was true, that not all is gold that glitters, and 2 and 2 make 4, and the gods of the copybook headings, limped up to explain it once more, as it was in the beginning, so it will in the end, there are only 4 things certain, since social progress began, that the dog returns to his vomit, and the sower returns to her mire, and the burnt fools bandaged finger, goes wobbling back to the fire, and that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins, where all men are paid for existing, and no man must pay for his sins, as surely as water will wet us, and as surely as fire will burn, the gods of the copybook headings, with terror and slaughter return.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hit the nail on the head.
> 
> They think that people do not deserve to be put through the trouble of actually managing the resources that they use. You, on the other hand, just have to deal.
> 
> It is asinine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Clueless White Person heard from.
> 
> Hey, guy, it's kind of hard to "manage" your shopping when you don't have a car, and the only store that is selling groceries is run by immigrants who sell expired food at exorbitant prices.  That's why those stores are always the first to get looted and burned when there's a riot like we see in LA or Ferguson.
> 
> The big chain stores don't put branches in these neighborhoods.
Click to expand...


CVS did and they burned it down


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> Please.... With all the government program food stamps no kids are starving.Do you find it funny Washington D.C. is on the list while it is the riches area of the country?, as they are wasting tax payers money on their corny bullshit? but you want more of it. Kids dont starve here sorry fraud



No, I don't want to waste tax dollars.  I'd be happy to take the Billions we are spending propping up Socialism in the Zionist Entity and spend it feeding poor kids in this country. 

"All the government food stamps" (they stopped using stamps year ago) comes out to about $1.47 per person per meal.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Haha coming from the party that invented talking points and fake arguments. I'm sorry but you are not capable of objectivity, so I'll try a different tact. What is your definition of rich, and what is your definition of "fair share" ?



Rich- Anyone making over $250,000. 

Fair Share- What they were paying before Reagan fucked up the Tax Code. 

That was easy.


----------



## Care4all

sakinago said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the point, and I said that's the current deficit. Still doesn't stop the point that the government is highly inefficient, and only growing it's inefficiency. You want to really help the people your talking about, then get on board with streamlining govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could think of much better ways to "Streamline" government than taking food out of the mouths of poor children.
> 
> Let's start with defense.  Withdraw all our troops out of every country in the world unless those countries want to pay us for them being there.
> 
> Then let's stop giving out Corporate Welfare and huge tax breaks to the rich.  Obama rolled back Bush's tax giveaways to the Rich and the Deficit was cut in half.
> 
> We could also means-test social security and Medicare.  If you have a pension and a 401K paying you a huge amount of money, you don't need social security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh some common ground, yes get those troops out, make the other NATO nations spend as much as they are required to for their own defense instead of relying on us. Also don't give billions of dollars to countries who openly hate us, or are just bad dictators and people. Stop propping them up.
> 
> Stop corporate welfare, which Obama does more than bush. Ever hear of stimulus, bailouts, solindra? And there's another form of corporate welfare that comes in the form of regulation. Where only the big dogs can afford to operate, like Dodd frank. Or laws that make citizens pay for things with out choice, ACA, the common core tests (which those companies are making billions), etc. And remember Obama added what like 67 new lobbyist. And deficit did not get cut in half if it went up more than all the previous presidents combined.  We lost our shit when it went up to 6 trillion with bush.
> 
> The means test for social security I can see, but then it just becomes welfare essentially, especially when you pay a piss ton in your whole life with the expectation of getting some back in the end. But I could see that.
> 
> And there is a tonof ridiculous spending going on in the govt, half a mill on giving rabbits Swedish massages, couple mill euthanizing endangered turtles, swat team for the dept of education and any other govt program that does not need one.
> 
> And there needs to be a flat tax, get this stupid loophole filled code out if there. If your for profit, you pay up
Click to expand...

Boy oh boy are YOU way off base with your propaganda.....Sheesh!!!!    Just downright lies or misinformation from lying right wing media that YOU CHOSE to believe without verifying your sources....

President Obama did cut the deficit in half.....actually...more than half from Bush's last fiscal year of responsibility....  and saying Bush was less of a corporate shill than Obama is ANOTHER mistake.with no actual facts to support such foolish talk.....etc etc etc etc etc.....be careful, double check what you think you know before spouting lies and right wing propaganda, then on real issues you could have more clout or respect...when debating imo.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha coming from the party that invented talking points and fake arguments. I'm sorry but you are not capable of objectivity, so I'll try a different tact. What is your definition of rich, and what is your definition of "fair share" ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich- Anyone making over $250,000.
> 
> Fair Share- What they were paying before Reagan fucked up the Tax Code.
> 
> That was easy.
Click to expand...


Our tax code has been f'd up since way before Reagan, actually right around the time of WWI I believe. But, anyway I assume you believe they should be taxed just shy of 50% for personal, and like 57 % corporate?


----------



## Vigilante

Back on topic....


----------



## sakinago

Care4all said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the point, and I said that's the current deficit. Still doesn't stop the point that the government is highly inefficient, and only growing it's inefficiency. You want to really help the people your talking about, then get on board with streamlining govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could think of much better ways to "Streamline" government than taking food out of the mouths of poor children.
> 
> Let's start with defense.  Withdraw all our troops out of every country in the world unless those countries want to pay us for them being there.
> 
> Then let's stop giving out Corporate Welfare and huge tax breaks to the rich.  Obama rolled back Bush's tax giveaways to the Rich and the Deficit was cut in half.
> 
> We could also means-test social security and Medicare.  If you have a pension and a 401K paying you a huge amount of money, you don't need social security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh some common ground, yes get those troops out, make the other NATO nations spend as much as they are required to for their own defense instead of relying on us. Also don't give billions of dollars to countries who openly hate us, or are just bad dictators and people. Stop propping them up.
> 
> Stop corporate welfare, which Obama does more than bush. Ever hear of stimulus, bailouts, solindra? And there's another form of corporate welfare that comes in the form of regulation. Where only the big dogs can afford to operate, like Dodd frank. Or laws that make citizens pay for things with out choice, ACA, the common core tests (which those companies are making billions), etc. And remember Obama added what like 67 new lobbyist. And deficit did not get cut in half if it went up more than all the previous presidents combined.  We lost our shit when it went up to 6 trillion with bush.
> 
> The means test for social security I can see, but then it just becomes welfare essentially, especially when you pay a piss ton in your whole life with the expectation of getting some back in the end. But I could see that.
> 
> And there is a tonof ridiculous spending going on in the govt, half a mill on giving rabbits Swedish massages, couple mill euthanizing endangered turtles, swat team for the dept of education and any other govt program that does not need one.
> 
> And there needs to be a flat tax, get this stupid loophole filled code out if there. If your for profit, you pay up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Boy oh boy are YOU way off base with your propaganda.....Sheesh!!!!    Just downright lies or misinformation from lying right wing media that YOU CHOSE to believe without verifying your sources....
> 
> President Obama did cut the deficit in half.....actually...more than half from Bush's last fiscal year of responsibility....  and saying Bush was less of a corporate shill than Obama is ANOTHER mistake.with no actual facts to support such foolish talk.....etc etc etc etc etc.....be careful, double check what you think you know before spouting lies and right wing propaganda, then on real issues you could have more clout or respect...when debating imo.
Click to expand...

Ok I'll be more specific with my words, since any wrong word you can find, you will jump all over, ignoring my main point. Main point being DEBT is still skyrocketing despite record highs in tax revenue. So do we still think govt has a revenue problem? How can that be possible since we have highs in revenue? No they have a spending problem. You can try to blame it wartime spending, but is that really the case when homeland security alone has purchased enough ammo to fund the Iraq war at it's height for decades? And I believe AT LEAST 90% of those over are paying around 43% in tax. I don't consider those 250,000 the big guy at all, they are the small business owner/where most Americans find their employment. And what's happening to the labor force??? Can't ignore that stat, even if your in charge. The rich keep getting richer , just like in the early days of the industrial era, where you can only get richer like that through the help of power. Which was my earlier point that regulation is another form of corporate welfare, where the smart lobbyist from big bis push for it, not against. Giving the growing little guy not enough resources, like teams of lawyers, time, "proper equipment",  or manpower for the useless menial jobs. Ever try to do a state contract in anything, they're fubar. My dad owns a construction company, and my bro owns a paving company, and I could give y'all so many stupid regulations there are that make contracts cost 3 times more than they should.


----------



## skookerasbil

Care4all said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the point, and I said that's the current deficit. Still doesn't stop the point that the government is highly inefficient, and only growing it's inefficiency. You want to really help the people your talking about, then get on board with streamlining govt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could think of much better ways to "Streamline" government than taking food out of the mouths of poor children.
> 
> Let's start with defense.  Withdraw all our troops out of every country in the world unless those countries want to pay us for them being there.
> 
> Then let's stop giving out Corporate Welfare and huge tax breaks to the rich.  Obama rolled back Bush's tax giveaways to the Rich and the Deficit was cut in half.
> 
> We could also means-test social security and Medicare.  If you have a pension and a 401K paying you a huge amount of money, you don't need social security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh some common ground, yes get those troops out, make the other NATO nations spend as much as they are required to for their own defense instead of relying on us. Also don't give billions of dollars to countries who openly hate us, or are just bad dictators and people. Stop propping them up.
> 
> Stop corporate welfare, which Obama does more than bush. Ever hear of stimulus, bailouts, solindra? And there's another form of corporate welfare that comes in the form of regulation. Where only the big dogs can afford to operate, like Dodd frank. Or laws that make citizens pay for things with out choice, ACA, the common core tests (which those companies are making billions), etc. And remember Obama added what like 67 new lobbyist. And deficit did not get cut in half if it went up more than all the previous presidents combined.  We lost our shit when it went up to 6 trillion with bush.
> 
> The means test for social security I can see, but then it just becomes welfare essentially, especially when you pay a piss ton in your whole life with the expectation of getting some back in the end. But I could see that.
> 
> And there is a tonof ridiculous spending going on in the govt, half a mill on giving rabbits Swedish massages, couple mill euthanizing endangered turtles, swat team for the dept of education and any other govt program that does not need one.
> 
> And there needs to be a flat tax, get this stupid loophole filled code out if there. If your for profit, you pay up
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....
> 
> President Obama did cut the deficit in half.....actually...more than half from Bush's last fiscal year of responsibility....  .
Click to expand...



lol.....to progressives, shining shit is a virtue!!!

This analogy is like saying, "Well.........now that 3 out of 4 goiters have been removed from her face, she';s gorgeous!!!"


----------



## skookerasbil

Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!


----------



## aris2chat

skookerasbil said:


> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!



You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.

Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.


----------



## skookerasbil

aris2chat said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
Click to expand...



Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.

PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.


Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!


----------



## aris2chat

skookerasbil said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
Click to expand...


How about telling the man to keep the pants zipped up.  It should not be just the responsibility of women.  Maybe men should be required to start taking male birth control till a women speaks to his doctor and they all agree for him to stop taking it.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Our tax code has been f'd up since way before Reagan, actually right around the time of WWI I believe. But, anyway I assume you believe they should be taxed just shy of 50% for personal, and like 57 % corporate?



I wouldn't have a problem with a lower corporate tax rate, if you are providing jobs for AMERICANS.  (I'm for a higher tax rate if you are moving jobs overseas. Also publicizing your name and address on national TV.)


----------



## Stephanie

aris2chat said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
Click to expand...

No one is talking about getting rid of them. us Taxpayers or I should say. SOME of us want our tax dollars to be stopped in funding them. they can go beg on a street corner. Or run a commercial like the animal Human Society. Donate $20 dollars a month you can help in sucking out 100 babies a day so we can sell their body parts


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our tax code has been f'd up since way before Reagan, actually right around the time of WWI I believe. But, anyway I assume you believe they should be taxed just shy of 50% for personal, and like 57 % corporate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have a problem with a lower corporate tax rate, if you are providing jobs for AMERICANS.  (I'm for a higher tax rate if you are moving jobs overseas. Also publicizing your name and address on national TV.)
Click to expand...


I'm for that too, but it's kind of a chicken and egg, you have to make it lower for those jobs to come back, if they do. What  more for is not taxing people on the first 50,000


----------



## FA_Q2

aris2chat said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about telling the man to keep the pants zipped up.  It should not be just the responsibility of women.  Maybe men should be required to start taking male birth control till a women speaks to his doctor and they all agree for him to stop taking it.
Click to expand...

This tired old bullshit line again.

We DO tell men to keep it zipped up and if they do not then they are FORCED to pay for it for 18 years - end of story.  The system does not care if they cannot eat, if they do not want the child or if the woman lied and said she was on birth control because it is HIS responsibility where he puts his dick.

But when we transfer over to women suddenly you have to pull out these bullshit lines.'


----------



## aris2chat

FA_Q2 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about telling the man to keep the pants zipped up.  It should not be just the responsibility of women.  Maybe men should be required to start taking male birth control till a women speaks to his doctor and they all agree for him to stop taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This tired old bullshit line again.
> 
> We DO tell men to keep it zipped up and if they do not then they are FORCED to pay for it for 18 years - end of story.  The system does not care if they cannot eat, if they do not want the child or if the woman lied and said she was on birth control because it is HIS responsibility where he puts his dick.
> 
> But when we transfer over to women suddenly you have to pull out these bullshit lines.'
Click to expand...


Only a fraction actually pay child care and what they do pay is insufficient with the possible exception of the upper 1%.  Courts can only do so much and they are underfunded to chase down delinquent fathers.

Child support?  that is a joke.

How many never know they are father, or care?  How many women might not know who the father is?  How many can't find the father and demand the court force them to pay?

Why must the women be responsible for birth control?  She is responsible for the choice to keep or abort an unwanted fetus.  She has the choice if she wants to be a mother, or give birth and give up the child.  It is her body.

Few men really have self control when it come to sex.  They don't worry about the consequences.  Few even care.  They only have so much blood and what is above their shoulders get far too little when so much is used below the waist.

Even divorce couples fight over child support and women get far too little to provide for the child(ren)'s needs.  Court far too often have to chase them down or get them to pay their share.


----------



## HenryBHough

Vigilante said:


> Back on topic....



Drawing is incomplete.  No price shown for sex organs.  Is it that would-be trannies don't want something that would have to grow to appropriate size?  One would think that's fair for female-wannabes but for a budding liberal male?  What in hell would one of them do with a penis larger than a rosebud?


----------



## Synthaholic

SassyIrishLass said:


> Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions


Hoax videos.  And you fell for it.


----------



## Vigilante

*Why Planned Parenthood Can’t Donate Tissue Harvested From Babies*

thefederalist.com ^ | July 29, 2015 | Katie Geary
If you haven’t watched the damning videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing fetal tissue donation (or, in plain language, exchanging aborted babies’ body parts for money), you should watch them now before you read further. The first alarming question is whether Planned Parenthood illegally sells aborted fetuses’ organs and tissue. This is what Planned Parenthood and its defenders have repeatedly focused on, insisting that they are compliant with all laws. But it is what precedes that “fetal tissue donation” that needs attention. Specifically, does Planned Parenthood regularly flout the federal ban on partial-birth abortion using loopholes? How do they get...


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Fireworks on Fox....loved what Starnes said..."“our messed up world” and the fact that America “does not have a moral compass” is to blame for the 60 million children aborted since Roe v. Wade became law: “Right is wrong, wrong is right. And the country is in grave, grave danger.”

The world is truly upside down.


----------



## BULLDOG

SassyIrishLass said:


> Fireworks on Fox....loved what Starnes said..."“our messed up world” and the fact that America “does not have a moral compass” is to blame for the 60 million children aborted since Roe v. Wade became law: “Right is wrong, wrong is right. And the country is in grave, grave danger.”
> 
> The world is truly upside down.




These idiots are absolutely right about one thing. The country doesn't think this latest crazy tantrum is worth worrying about. By all means rant and holler amongst yourselves all you think you need to, but the few crazies are the only ones who have their panties in a knot.


----------



## Bobby1250

*The next question that must be asked is if women were encouraged to have abortions in order to keep the supply of body parts full.*


----------



## Stephanie

Read it and weep. sick people at PP
SNIP:

Harvested From Babies

July 29, 2015 By Katie Geary


If you haven’t watched the damning videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing fetal tissue donation (or, in plain language, exchanging aborted babies’ body parts for money), you should watch them now before you read further.

The first alarming question is whether Planned Parenthood illegally sells aborted fetuses’ organs and tissue. This is what Planned Parenthood and its defenders have repeatedly focused on, insisting that they are compliant with all laws.

But it is what _precedes_ that “fetal tissue donation” that needs attention. Specifically, does Planned Parenthood regularly flout the federal ban on partial-birth abortion using loopholes? How do they get away with this? Do their patients—the women who apparently choose to donate the “fetal tissue”—know what’s going on in explicit terms?

Federal law prohibits partial-birth abortion, a gruesome procedure in which an unborn baby is intentionally turned to the breech position to ensure that delivery of the body happens before delivery of the head. Once the baby’s head is stuck in the birth canal, the abortionist punctures the skull, evacuates the contents, and the baby is dead.

There’s a good reason this practice is banned—it’s barbaric. Many Americans may not know that the term “partial-birth abortion” is not a medical one but a legal one. And, according to Planned Parenthood doctor Deborah Nucatola, some abortion providers don’t consider it with any seriousness. In her own words, “It’s not a medical term, it doesn’t exist in reality.” What?

*Why It’s Good to Give Babies a Heart Attack*
*It’s clear Nucatola thinks the law is irrelevant—or, as she says, up for “interpretation.” She explains how abortion providers get around the law by injecting a fatal quantity of digoxin, a cardiotoxic drug, into the baby’s heart before dismembering or delivering it. In Nucatola’s words, using the slang for digoxin, they “dig.” (Here’s the **full footage** of Nucatola and the **transcript**.)*

Abortion providers get around the law by injecting a fatal quantity of digoxin into the baby’s heart before dismembering or delivering it.
She explains: “Providers who use digoxin use it for one of two reasons. There’s a group of people who just use it so they have no risk of violating the Federal Abortion Ban. Because if you induce a demise before the procedure, nobody’s going to say you did a ‘live’—whatever the federal government calls it. Partial-birth abortion.” The second reason providers use it is “because they actually think it makes the tissue softer and it makes it safer and easier to do the procedure.” She counts herself in the second group.

So, if you “dig,” you’re guaranteed a dead baby and a successful abortion without having to worry about the law. Moreover, you’ll find that a baby that has already died from a heart attack is apparently “softer” and easier to pull apart with metal instruments.

I wonder how candid Nucatola is with her patients about this process.

*You Can’t Be Humane If You’re Extracting Baby Parts*

ALL of it here:
Why Planned Parenthood Can t Donate Tissue From Babies


----------



## aris2chat

Vigilante said:


> *Why Planned Parenthood Can’t Donate Tissue Harvested From Babies*
> 
> thefederalist.com ^ | July 29, 2015 | Katie Geary
> If you haven’t watched the damning videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing fetal tissue donation (or, in plain language, exchanging aborted babies’ body parts for money), you should watch them now before you read further. The first alarming question is whether Planned Parenthood illegally sells aborted fetuses’ organs and tissue. This is what Planned Parenthood and its defenders have repeatedly focused on, insisting that they are compliant with all laws. But it is what precedes that “fetal tissue donation” that needs attention. Specifically, does Planned Parenthood regularly flout the federal ban on partial-birth abortion using loopholes? How do they get...



Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video


----------



## Stephanie

l


aris2chat said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Planned Parenthood Can’t Donate Tissue Harvested From Babies*
> 
> thefederalist.com ^ | July 29, 2015 | Katie Geary
> If you haven’t watched the damning videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing fetal tissue donation (or, in plain language, exchanging aborted babies’ body parts for money), you should watch them now before you read further. The first alarming question is whether Planned Parenthood illegally sells aborted fetuses’ organs and tissue. This is what Planned Parenthood and its defenders have repeatedly focused on, insisting that they are compliant with all laws. But it is what precedes that “fetal tissue donation” that needs attention. Specifically, does Planned Parenthood regularly flout the federal ban on partial-birth abortion using loopholes? How do they get...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
Click to expand...


factcheck. org are they suppose to be the be all of facts to end all or something? they are leftwing and biased as can be
how anyone can defend those videos and then wail over an animal being killed is low

snip;
Why Planned Parenthood Can’t Donate Tissue Harvested From Babies
Abortions performed with feticides aren’t viable for fetal-tissue donation. That means the babies are alive when Planned Parenthood extracts their parts.

from:
Katie Geary Author at The Federalist


----------



## aris2chat

Stephanie said:


> l
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why Planned Parenthood Can’t Donate Tissue Harvested From Babies*
> 
> thefederalist.com ^ | July 29, 2015 | Katie Geary
> If you haven’t watched the damning videos of Planned Parenthood officials discussing fetal tissue donation (or, in plain language, exchanging aborted babies’ body parts for money), you should watch them now before you read further. The first alarming question is whether Planned Parenthood illegally sells aborted fetuses’ organs and tissue. This is what Planned Parenthood and its defenders have repeatedly focused on, insisting that they are compliant with all laws. But it is what precedes that “fetal tissue donation” that needs attention. Specifically, does Planned Parenthood regularly flout the federal ban on partial-birth abortion using loopholes? How do they get...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> factcheck. org are they suppose to be the be all of facts to end all or something? they are leftwing and biased as can be
> how anyone can defend those videos and then wail over an animal being killed is low
Click to expand...


Any single sites is only a starting point to begin your own research.  You expect every point and fact to be handed to you on a silver platter?  It is an alternative to no facts at all.  This is a message board not a college thesis

Log onto a university or think tank and read from the scholarly papers written on the subject.  Learn to use the other search options beside the http/www, try an actual library and their magazine and periodicals as well as books.

There are a half dozen or so government statistic sites to use as well in your search.

Most are not here to learn just to vent and voice their own limited view point.  Some will take what is presented and do their own research.

To each their own


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> No one is talking about getting rid of them. us Taxpayers or I should say. SOME of us want our tax dollars to be stopped in funding them. they can go beg on a street corner. Or run a commercial like the animal Human Society. Donate $20 dollars a month you can help in sucking out 100 babies a day so we can sell their body parts



There's a whole lot of shit you Right Wingers get funded I'd rather not pay for.  When you start saying those things shouldn't get funded, then I'll take you eriously. 

In the meantime, I want PP doing cancer screenings and sex education and women's health checkups.


----------



## sakinago

Synthaholic said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions
> 
> 
> 
> Hoax videos.  And you fell for it.
Click to expand...


Hahaha planned parenthood admits they're real


----------



## Stephanie

snip:

I heard there were 12 tapes all together. People are going to get the shock of their lives. Hopefully enough to do something about PP. And get some morals back in their lives. sick society we have become. 60MILLION and counting since 1979

SNIP:
*Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still ‘Needs to Be Answered’*
Jul. 29, 2015 7:32pm Erica Ritz

David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress — the organization that released a series of horrifying videos seemingly capturing Planned Parenthood officials discussing their organization’s sale of fetal tissue obtained through abortion, says there is one question that still “needs to be answered” amid the controversy.

Speaking with TheBlaze TV’s Dana Loesch, Daleiden said Planned Parenthood must disclose how much it has profited from the practice.


“We don’t have a good way of knowing because Planned Parenthood’s baby part sales are buried so deep down within their organization that some of the national leadership of Planned Parenthood doesn’t even fully know the scope of it,” he said. “The national office has for many years now chosen to have a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy about the fetal tissue sales of the affiliates in order to … keep themselves insulated it from it legally, even though they’re still aware of it.”

Though Daleiden wouldn’t commit to an exact number, he said “one, high-volume Planned Parenthood clinic can easily make at least $100,000 a year off the sale of baby parts, if not more.”

all of it here:



Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still Needs to Be Answered Video TheBlaze.com


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Stephanie said:


> snip:
> 
> I heard there were 12 tapes all together. People are going to get the shock of their lives. Hopefully enough to do something about PP. And get some morals back in their lives. sick society we have become. 60MILLION and counting since 1979
> 
> SNIP:
> *Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still ‘Needs to Be Answered’*
> Jul. 29, 2015 7:32pm Erica Ritz
> 
> David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress — the organization that released a series of horrifying videos seemingly capturing Planned Parenthood officials discussing their organization’s sale of fetal tissue obtained through abortion, says there is one question that still “needs to be answered” amid the controversy.
> 
> Speaking with TheBlaze TV’s Dana Loesch, Daleiden said Planned Parenthood must disclose how much it has profited from the practice.
> 
> 
> “We don’t have a good way of knowing because Planned Parenthood’s baby part sales are buried so deep down within their organization that some of the national leadership of Planned Parenthood doesn’t even fully know the scope of it,” he said. “The national office has for many years now chosen to have a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy about the fetal tissue sales of the affiliates in order to … keep themselves insulated it from it legally, even though they’re still aware of it.”
> 
> Though Daleiden wouldn’t commit to an exact number, he said “one, high-volume Planned Parenthood clinic can easily make at least $100,000 a year off the sale of baby parts, if not more.”
> 
> all of it here:
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still Needs to Be Answered Video TheBlaze.com



There is something in the tapes, PP got a judge in LA to prohibit one from being released. Nothing to hide why are they going to court to block the release?


----------



## Stephanie

SassyIrishLass said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> snip:
> 
> I heard there were 12 tapes all together. People are going to get the shock of their lives. Hopefully enough to do something about PP. And get some morals back in their lives. sick society we have become. 60MILLION and counting since 1979
> 
> SNIP:
> *Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still ‘Needs to Be Answered’*
> Jul. 29, 2015 7:32pm Erica Ritz
> 
> David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress — the organization that released a series of horrifying videos seemingly capturing Planned Parenthood officials discussing their organization’s sale of fetal tissue obtained through abortion, says there is one question that still “needs to be answered” amid the controversy.
> 
> Speaking with TheBlaze TV’s Dana Loesch, Daleiden said Planned Parenthood must disclose how much it has profited from the practice.
> 
> 
> “We don’t have a good way of knowing because Planned Parenthood’s baby part sales are buried so deep down within their organization that some of the national leadership of Planned Parenthood doesn’t even fully know the scope of it,” he said. “The national office has for many years now chosen to have a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy about the fetal tissue sales of the affiliates in order to … keep themselves insulated it from it legally, even though they’re still aware of it.”
> 
> Though Daleiden wouldn’t commit to an exact number, he said “one, high-volume Planned Parenthood clinic can easily make at least $100,000 a year off the sale of baby parts, if not more.”
> 
> all of it here:
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still Needs to Be Answered Video TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something in the tapes, PP got a judge in LA to prohibit one from being released. Nothing to hide why are they going to court to block the release?
Click to expand...


oh I know. did you see the threat I posted from them to the news stations? they said these tapes were taken by "extremist". I'm like what a rotten baby killing industry. more worried over some tapes being released


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Stephanie said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> snip:
> 
> I heard there were 12 tapes all together. People are going to get the shock of their lives. Hopefully enough to do something about PP. And get some morals back in their lives. sick society we have become. 60MILLION and counting since 1979
> 
> SNIP:
> *Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still ‘Needs to Be Answered’*
> Jul. 29, 2015 7:32pm Erica Ritz
> 
> David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress — the organization that released a series of horrifying videos seemingly capturing Planned Parenthood officials discussing their organization’s sale of fetal tissue obtained through abortion, says there is one question that still “needs to be answered” amid the controversy.
> 
> Speaking with TheBlaze TV’s Dana Loesch, Daleiden said Planned Parenthood must disclose how much it has profited from the practice.
> 
> 
> “We don’t have a good way of knowing because Planned Parenthood’s baby part sales are buried so deep down within their organization that some of the national leadership of Planned Parenthood doesn’t even fully know the scope of it,” he said. “The national office has for many years now chosen to have a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy about the fetal tissue sales of the affiliates in order to … keep themselves insulated it from it legally, even though they’re still aware of it.”
> 
> Though Daleiden wouldn’t commit to an exact number, he said “one, high-volume Planned Parenthood clinic can easily make at least $100,000 a year off the sale of baby parts, if not more.”
> 
> all of it here:
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still Needs to Be Answered Video TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something in the tapes, PP got a judge in LA to prohibit one from being released. Nothing to hide why are they going to court to block the release?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh I know. did you see the threat I posted from them to the news stations? they said these tapes were taken by "extremist". I'm like what a rotten baby killing industry. more worried over some tapes being released
Click to expand...


The damage is done, people are outraged. Well except for the left they are still blabbering "heavily edited" and supporting the murder of the most innocent of all


----------



## Stephanie

SassyIrishLass said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> snip:
> 
> I heard there were 12 tapes all together. People are going to get the shock of their lives. Hopefully enough to do something about PP. And get some morals back in their lives. sick society we have become. 60MILLION and counting since 1979
> 
> SNIP:
> *Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still ‘Needs to Be Answered’*
> Jul. 29, 2015 7:32pm Erica Ritz
> 
> David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress — the organization that released a series of horrifying videos seemingly capturing Planned Parenthood officials discussing their organization’s sale of fetal tissue obtained through abortion, says there is one question that still “needs to be answered” amid the controversy.
> 
> Speaking with TheBlaze TV’s Dana Loesch, Daleiden said Planned Parenthood must disclose how much it has profited from the practice.
> 
> 
> “We don’t have a good way of knowing because Planned Parenthood’s baby part sales are buried so deep down within their organization that some of the national leadership of Planned Parenthood doesn’t even fully know the scope of it,” he said. “The national office has for many years now chosen to have a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy about the fetal tissue sales of the affiliates in order to … keep themselves insulated it from it legally, even though they’re still aware of it.”
> 
> Though Daleiden wouldn’t commit to an exact number, he said “one, high-volume Planned Parenthood clinic can easily make at least $100,000 a year off the sale of baby parts, if not more.”
> 
> all of it here:
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still Needs to Be Answered Video TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something in the tapes, PP got a judge in LA to prohibit one from being released. Nothing to hide why are they going to court to block the release?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh I know. did you see the threat I posted from them to the news stations? they said these tapes were taken by "extremist". I'm like what a rotten baby killing industry. more worried over some tapes being released
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The damage is done, people are outraged. Well except for the left they are still blabbering "heavily edited" and supporting the murder of the most innocent of all
Click to expand...


my reasons are personal. PP tried to convince me at seventeen to abort what is now my wonderful 42 year old son. who just made me a Great Grandmother. damn I'm old.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Stephanie said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> snip:
> 
> I heard there were 12 tapes all together. People are going to get the shock of their lives. Hopefully enough to do something about PP. And get some morals back in their lives. sick society we have become. 60MILLION and counting since 1979
> 
> SNIP:
> *Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still ‘Needs to Be Answered’*
> Jul. 29, 2015 7:32pm Erica Ritz
> 
> David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress — the organization that released a series of horrifying videos seemingly capturing Planned Parenthood officials discussing their organization’s sale of fetal tissue obtained through abortion, says there is one question that still “needs to be answered” amid the controversy.
> 
> Speaking with TheBlaze TV’s Dana Loesch, Daleiden said Planned Parenthood must disclose how much it has profited from the practice.
> 
> 
> “We don’t have a good way of knowing because Planned Parenthood’s baby part sales are buried so deep down within their organization that some of the national leadership of Planned Parenthood doesn’t even fully know the scope of it,” he said. “The national office has for many years now chosen to have a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy about the fetal tissue sales of the affiliates in order to … keep themselves insulated it from it legally, even though they’re still aware of it.”
> 
> Though Daleiden wouldn’t commit to an exact number, he said “one, high-volume Planned Parenthood clinic can easily make at least $100,000 a year off the sale of baby parts, if not more.”
> 
> all of it here:
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still Needs to Be Answered Video TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something in the tapes, PP got a judge in LA to prohibit one from being released. Nothing to hide why are they going to court to block the release?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh I know. did you see the threat I posted from them to the news stations? they said these tapes were taken by "extremist". I'm like what a rotten baby killing industry. more worried over some tapes being released
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The damage is done, people are outraged. Well except for the left they are still blabbering "heavily edited" and supporting the murder of the most innocent of all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my reasons are personal. PP tried to convince me at seventeen to abort what is now my wonderful 42 year old son. who just made me a Great Grandmother. damn I'm old.
Click to expand...


You're as young as you feel. Well done on your son. My reasons are I refuse to sit back and watch innocents being murdered, we have children and I can't imagine killing any of them. Evil....pure evil


----------



## SassyIrishLass




----------



## Stephanie

SassyIrishLass said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> snip:
> 
> I heard there were 12 tapes all together. People are going to get the shock of their lives. Hopefully enough to do something about PP. And get some morals back in their lives. sick society we have become. 60MILLION and counting since 1979
> 
> SNIP:
> *Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still ‘Needs to Be Answered’*
> Jul. 29, 2015 7:32pm Erica Ritz
> 
> David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress — the organization that released a series of horrifying videos seemingly capturing Planned Parenthood officials discussing their organization’s sale of fetal tissue obtained through abortion, says there is one question that still “needs to be answered” amid the controversy.
> 
> Speaking with TheBlaze TV’s Dana Loesch, Daleiden said Planned Parenthood must disclose how much it has profited from the practice.
> 
> 
> “We don’t have a good way of knowing because Planned Parenthood’s baby part sales are buried so deep down within their organization that some of the national leadership of Planned Parenthood doesn’t even fully know the scope of it,” he said. “The national office has for many years now chosen to have a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy about the fetal tissue sales of the affiliates in order to … keep themselves insulated it from it legally, even though they’re still aware of it.”
> 
> Though Daleiden wouldn’t commit to an exact number, he said “one, high-volume Planned Parenthood clinic can easily make at least $100,000 a year off the sale of baby parts, if not more.”
> 
> all of it here:
> 
> 
> 
> Man Who Helped Orchestrate Planned Parenthood Vids Says This Horrifying Question Still Needs to Be Answered Video TheBlaze.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something in the tapes, PP got a judge in LA to prohibit one from being released. Nothing to hide why are they going to court to block the release?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh I know. did you see the threat I posted from them to the news stations? they said these tapes were taken by "extremist". I'm like what a rotten baby killing industry. more worried over some tapes being released
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The damage is done, people are outraged. Well except for the left they are still blabbering "heavily edited" and supporting the murder of the most innocent of all
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> my reasons are personal. PP tried to convince me at seventeen to abort what is now my wonderful 42 year old son. who just made me a Great Grandmother. damn I'm old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're as young as you feel. Well done on your son. My reasons are I refuse to sit back and watch innocents being murdered, we have children and I can't imagine killing any of them. Evil....pure evil
Click to expand...


Same here. If these tapes don't open peoples eyes. then we are doomed as a society. these pro-abortion people care more about an animal being killed. it's sick and twisted. and PP is evil. they've been able to convince women how having an abortion is just a quick walk in the park. they don't CARE the guilt they suffer afterwards. You see women morning over a miscarriage. you can imagine them having an abortion.


----------



## SassyIrishLass




----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is talking about getting rid of them. us Taxpayers or I should say. SOME of us want our tax dollars to be stopped in funding them. they can go beg on a street corner. Or run a commercial like the animal Human Society. Donate $20 dollars a month you can help in sucking out 100 babies a day so we can sell their body parts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a whole lot of shit you Right Wingers get funded I'd rather not pay for.  When you start saying those things shouldn't get funded, then I'll take you eriously.
> 
> In the meantime, I want PP doing cancer screenings and sex education and women's health checkups.
Click to expand...


Like what?


----------



## SassyIrishLass




----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> I heard there were 12 tapes all together. People are going to get the shock of their lives. Hopefully enough to do something about PP. And get some morals back in their lives. sick society we have become. 60MILLION and counting since 1979



People choosing to not be pregnant has nothing to do with morals. 

Abortion isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There's a whole lot of shit you Right Wingers get funded I'd rather not pay for.  When you start saying those things shouldn't get funded, then I'll take you eriously.
> 
> In the meantime, I want PP doing cancer screenings and sex education and women's health checkups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
Click to expand...


How about airplanes that are going to cost a trillion dollars over hte next decade and can't perform as well as the planes we have now? 

How about paying billions of dollars to prop up Israel?


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> Same here. If these tapes don't open peoples eyes. then we are doomed as a society. these pro-abortion people care more about an animal being killed. it's sick and twisted. and PP is evil. they've been able to convince women how having an abortion is just a quick walk in the park. they don't CARE the guilt they suffer afterwards. You see women morning over a miscarriage. you can imagine them having an abortion.



Except most women who have abortions are just fine with it.  

99 Percent of Women Don t Regret Their Abortions - The Daily Beast

_Pro-life activists have long touted “post-abortion syndrome”—the notion that women experience major emotional trauma after terminating a pregnancy—as a reason for regulating the procedure. But a new study has found that 99 percent of those who had been through the process believed they had made the right decision, casting significant doubt on a medical theory that has enabled the passing of a ban on late abortions, mandatory ultrasound viewing, and waiting period legislation._


----------



## aris2chat

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard there were 12 tapes all together. People are going to get the shock of their lives. Hopefully enough to do something about PP. And get some morals back in their lives. sick society we have become. 60MILLION and counting since 1979
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People choosing to not be pregnant has nothing to do with morals.
> 
> Abortion isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible.
Click to expand...


actually numbers 5:22, the woman drinks bitter water that causes a miscarriage


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There's a whole lot of shit you Right Wingers get funded I'd rather not pay for.  When you start saying those things shouldn't get funded, then I'll take you eriously.
> 
> In the meantime, I want PP doing cancer screenings and sex education and women's health checkups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about airplanes that are going to cost a trillion dollars over hte next decade and can't perform as well as the planes we have now?
> 
> How about paying billions of dollars to prop up Israel?[/QUOTE
> Obamacare/Medicaid/Medicare cover those things you listed BTW.
> 
> Along with parenting classes, breast feeding classes etc...
Click to expand...


----------



## SassyIrishLass

$120,000 is quite the sum for shipping....just saying

*Pro-Life Group Tells Dana Loesch “The Videos Get Worse” ➠ TX Group Makes $120,000 A Month Selling Body Part*

Last night the Center for Medical Progress‘s *David Daleiden* went on The Dana Show on BlazeTV to discuss the groups upcoming investigative reports.

David told Dana,

“I’m sad to say, the videos get worse"

Pro-Life Group Tells Dana Loesch The Videos Get Worse TX Group Makes 120 000 A Month Selling Body Parts Video BB4SP


----------



## Cecilie1200

Faun said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
Click to expand...


Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".

Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Faun said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "minimal" fees are negotiable? LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can be when you don't know how much the expenses are. She can't even afford a tune up on a Lamborghini, no less purchasing one, making a few dollars on such a transaction.
Click to expand...


Yeah, because God knows, PP only butchers a few babies here and there.  It's not like they're doing a ghastly volume business in fetal corpses, or anything.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "minimal" fees are negotiable? LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can be when you don't know how much the expenses are. She can't even afford a tune up on a Lamborghini, no less purchasing one, making a few dollars on such a transaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because God knows, PP only butchers a few babies here and there.  It's not like they're doing a ghastly volume business in fetal corpses, or anything.
Click to expand...


This is a long video but worth the watch.....


----------



## Cecilie1200

skookerasbil said:


> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!



They can just e-mail me the location of the cemetery, so I can go by and piss on their graves when I have a free moment.


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
Click to expand...


I do so love the leftist belief that any accusation, no matter how spurious, against a conservative should be investigated to a ridiculous extent, but any accusation against a treasured liberal can just be dismissed by a casual, "Of course they didn't do it, let's move on."

You might not like it, but no one here respects you enough to think your word for it is sufficient.

Furthermore, no doctor "has" to take on fuck-all.  Just because you consider abortion to be the sacred communion of your leftist religion doesn't obligate anyone else to participate in it, and never will.  Doctors aren't slaves, either, and it is THEIR right to choose under the law, as well.  Try to change that.  I dare you, you hypocritical snotrag.


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about telling the man to keep the pants zipped up.  It should not be just the responsibility of women.  Maybe men should be required to start taking male birth control till a women speaks to his doctor and they all agree for him to stop taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This tired old bullshit line again.
> 
> We DO tell men to keep it zipped up and if they do not then they are FORCED to pay for it for 18 years - end of story.  The system does not care if they cannot eat, if they do not want the child or if the woman lied and said she was on birth control because it is HIS responsibility where he puts his dick.
> 
> But when we transfer over to women suddenly you have to pull out these bullshit lines.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a fraction actually pay child care and what they do pay is insufficient with the possible exception of the upper 1%.  Courts can only do so much and they are underfunded to chase down delinquent fathers.
> 
> Child support?  that is a joke.
> 
> How many never know they are father, or care?  How many women might not know who the father is?  How many can't find the father and demand the court force them to pay?
> 
> Why must the women be responsible for birth control?  She is responsible for the choice to keep or abort an unwanted fetus.  She has the choice if she wants to be a mother, or give birth and give up the child.  It is her body.
> 
> Few men really have self control when it come to sex.  They don't worry about the consequences.  Few even care.  They only have so much blood and what is above their shoulders get far too little when so much is used below the waist.
> 
> Even divorce couples fight over child support and women get far too little to provide for the child(ren)'s needs.  Court far too often have to chase them down or get them to pay their share.
Click to expand...


Stop diverting, snotrag.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> There's a whole lot of shit you Right Wingers get funded I'd rather not pay for.  When you start saying those things shouldn't get funded, then I'll take you eriously.
> 
> In the meantime, I want PP doing cancer screenings and sex education and women's health checkups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about airplanes that are going to cost a trillion dollars over hte next decade and can't perform as well as the planes we have now?
> 
> How about paying billions of dollars to prop up Israel?
Click to expand...

F35 is a shit show, and Israel... As well as 20 other nations should be fine just by themselves


----------



## Vigilante

The whole thing is meant to DISTRACT....as usual, something like Rubio's wife has speeding tickets, but BLEEDING HEARTS can hang on a lion better!


----------



## aris2chat

Courts banned the release of more videos by anti-choice advocates.  Seems actors are behind the making of these videos.

Videos are not factual.


----------



## Manonthestreet

aris2chat said:


> Courts banned the release of more videos by anti-choice advocates.  Seems actors are behind the making of these videos.
> 
> Videos are not factual.



You really are a rube......


----------



## Manonthestreet

Evidence now that intact fetus' were sold......which means murder charges


----------



## aris2chat

Manonthestreet said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Courts banned the release of more videos by anti-choice advocates.  Seems actors are behind the making of these videos.
> 
> Videos are not factual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a rube......
Click to expand...


The Shady Anti-Choice Actors Behind The Deceptive Video Accusing Planned Parenthood Of Selling Aborted Baby Parts Research Media Matters for America

Court Bars Anti-Abortion Group From Releasing New Videos - ABC News

and you don't read the news?


----------



## Manonthestreet

You are surprised a lib judge tried to shut down something making libs look bad......reallyyyyyy......


----------



## Coyote

skookerasbil said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
Click to expand...


Taxpayers do not pay for abortions.

And, don't forget - keep your zipper zipped.


----------



## aris2chat

Manonthestreet said:


> Evidence now that intact fetus' were sold......which means murder charges



It is only after the 20th week that the fetus are dismembered in the process of removal.  A regular abortion you are talking about a clump maybe the size of a small finger or smaller.  Women pass menses clots larger than that.


----------



## Manonthestreet

You dont know what you're talking about as far as what has been discovered........because you dont want to know.....This is the type of reporting that used to garner a Pulitzer......


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> Courts banned the release of more videos by anti-choice advocates.  Seems actors are behind the making of these videos.
> 
> Videos are not factual.


Haha it's not bc they're fake, it's bc they're real and apparently get much worse. And we also have no freedom of speech anymore...so yay. Pp admits they are


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxpayers do not pay for abortions.
> 
> And, don't forget - keep your zipper zipped.
Click to expand...


I've seen too many bodies turned inside out in war to be squeamish by an abortion.  I've seen too many children starving or suffering to believe an unwanted infant should be brought into the world.

I've had three wonderful children and lost one early on.  I also nearly bled to death during the delivery of my second live birth.  My last I was on bed rest and suffering painful complications to this day.

Two separate times the ER told my daughter her second was dead and should be removed.  They were wrong.  He is autistic but a strong and active child.

Children are wonderful but there is no reason a women should be forced to have a child if she is not ready or does not want to.  Pregnancy is a commitment in time, body and  mind.  Raising a child is a life time.

There are many people that want to be parents and some that would gladly adopt, but there are far too many out there in the world that will never survive to their teens and millions that have no home or parents and only a fraction of them will ever be adopted.

Too many living children die every day that could be saved and the high minded right in the US living in their pretty bubble want to force a woman to have her body deformed and give birth a child she does not want.  Why aren't they each adopting 20 children, already born, instead?

Sadly girls/women are not taught about birth control and natural abortions.  They are sometimes not even aware in the first couple of weeks that they are pregnant because they are not taught the signs.

There are a million reason a woman might not want to carry, or told she should not carry, a child and unless you are in that place or actually know those women you can't really understand, but that does not give you the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.  Go find some other band wagon to jump on.

Birth is a wonderful thing, but only when you want and are ready for it.


----------



## aris2chat

Exposed The Faces and Fake Names of the People Behind Planned Parenthood Attack Videos page 1


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> Courts banned the release of more videos by anti-choice advocates.  Seems actors are behind the making of these videos.
> 
> Videos are not factual.



Prove it.  And you and Obama should figure out now that "Planned Parenthood assured us" doesn't constitute proof.


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Courts banned the release of more videos by anti-choice advocates.  Seems actors are behind the making of these videos.
> 
> Videos are not factual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a rube......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Shady Anti-Choice Actors Behind The Deceptive Video Accusing Planned Parenthood Of Selling Aborted Baby Parts Research Media Matters for America
> 
> Court Bars Anti-Abortion Group From Releasing New Videos - ABC News
> 
> and you don't read the news?
Click to expand...


Media Matters for America is "news"?  Maybe on Planet Libtard.


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence now that intact fetus' were sold......which means murder charges
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is only after the 20th week that the fetus are dismembered in the process of removal.  A regular abortion you are talking about a clump maybe the size of a small finger or smaller.  Women pass menses clots larger than that.
Click to expand...


Hey, your brain is a menses clot _smaller _than that.  

Did you have a point to make?


----------



## aris2chat

Judge blocks release of recordings by anti-abortion group Fox News


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxpayers do not pay for abortions.
> 
> And, don't forget - keep your zipper zipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen too many bodies turned inside out in war to be squeamish by an abortion.  I've seen too many children starving or suffering to believe an unwanted infant should be brought into the world.
> 
> I've had three wonderful children and lost one early on.  I also nearly bled to death during the delivery of my second live birth.  My last I was on bed rest and suffering painful complications to this day.
> 
> Two separate times the ER told my daughter her second was dead and should be removed.  They were wrong.  He is autistic but a strong and active child.
> 
> Children are wonderful but there is no reason a women should be forced to have a child if she is not ready or does not want to.  Pregnancy is a commitment in time, body and  mind.  Raising a child is a life time.
> 
> There are many people that want to be parents and some that would gladly adopt, but there are far too many out there in the world that will never survive to their teens and millions that have no home or parents and only a fraction of them will ever be adopted.
> 
> Too many living children die every day that could be saved and the high minded right in the US living in their pretty bubble want to force a woman to have her body deformed and give birth a child she does not want.  Why aren't they each adopting 20 children, already born, instead?
> 
> Sadly girls/women are not taught about birth control and natural abortions.  They are sometimes not even aware in the first couple of weeks that they are pregnant because they are not taught the signs.
> 
> There are a million reason a woman might not want to carry, or told she should not carry, a child and unless you are in that place or actually know those women you can't really understand, but that does not give you the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.  Go find some other band wagon to jump on.
> 
> Birth is a wonderful thing, but only when you want and are ready for it.
Click to expand...


Glad to know you taught your children that they were only wonderful because you happened to want them at the moment.

Save the rest for your therapist.  Without $500 an hour to listen, I can assure you that no one else gives a tin shit about your personal spewing.


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> Exposed The Faces and Fake Names of the People Behind Planned Parenthood Attack Videos page 1



You are the reason this board had to give up neg repping.


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> Judge blocks release of recordings by anti-abortion group Fox News



Yet another liberal twat waffle who can't read.  You posted a link to a story that says something completely different than the point you were trying to use it to substantiate.  That takes a level of stupid that might require a rethinking of the laws of physics just to measure.


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxpayers do not pay for abortions.
> 
> And, don't forget - keep your zipper zipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen too many bodies turned inside out in war to be squeamish by an abortion.  I've seen too many children starving or suffering to believe an unwanted infant should be brought into the world.
> 
> I've had three wonderful children and lost one early on.  I also nearly bled to death during the delivery of my second live birth.  My last I was on bed rest and suffering painful complications to this day.
> 
> Two separate times the ER told my daughter her second was dead and should be removed.  They were wrong.  He is autistic but a strong and active child.
> 
> Children are wonderful but there is no reason a women should be forced to have a child if she is not ready or does not want to.  Pregnancy is a commitment in time, body and  mind.  Raising a child is a life time.
> 
> There are many people that want to be parents and some that would gladly adopt, but there are far too many out there in the world that will never survive to their teens and millions that have no home or parents and only a fraction of them will ever be adopted.
> 
> Too many living children die every day that could be saved and the high minded right in the US living in their pretty bubble want to force a woman to have her body deformed and give birth a child she does not want.  Why aren't they each adopting 20 children, already born, instead?
> 
> Sadly girls/women are not taught about birth control and natural abortions.  They are sometimes not even aware in the first couple of weeks that they are pregnant because they are not taught the signs.
> 
> There are a million reason a woman might not want to carry, or told she should not carry, a child and unless you are in that place or actually know those women you can't really understand, but that does not give you the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.  Go find some other band wagon to jump on.
> 
> Birth is a wonderful thing, but only when you want and are ready for it.
Click to expand...

When has a mother ever regretted a child outside of the sad cases of ppd like Casey Anthony? And when did it become right to put fiscal questions before life?


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Coyote

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxpayers do not pay for abortions.
> 
> And, don't forget - keep your zipper zipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen too many bodies turned inside out in war to be squeamish by an abortion.  I've seen too many children starving or suffering to believe an unwanted infant should be brought into the world.
> 
> I've had three wonderful children and lost one early on.  I also nearly bled to death during the delivery of my second live birth.  My last I was on bed rest and suffering painful complications to this day.
> 
> Two separate times the ER told my daughter her second was dead and should be removed.  They were wrong.  He is autistic but a strong and active child.
> 
> Children are wonderful but there is no reason a women should be forced to have a child if she is not ready or does not want to.  Pregnancy is a commitment in time, body and  mind.  Raising a child is a life time.
> 
> There are many people that want to be parents and some that would gladly adopt, but there are far too many out there in the world that will never survive to their teens and millions that have no home or parents and only a fraction of them will ever be adopted.
> 
> Too many living children die every day that could be saved and the high minded right in the US living in their pretty bubble want to force a woman to have her body deformed and give birth a child she does not want.  Why aren't they each adopting 20 children, already born, instead?
> 
> Sadly girls/women are not taught about birth control and natural abortions.  They are sometimes not even aware in the first couple of weeks that they are pregnant because they are not taught the signs.
> 
> There are a million reason a woman might not want to carry, or told she should not carry, a child and unless you are in that place or actually know those women you can't really understand, but that does not give you the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.  Go find some other band wagon to jump on.
> 
> Birth is a wonderful thing, but only when you want and are ready for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When has a mother ever regretted a child *outside of the sad cases of ppd like Casey Anthony? And when did it become right to put fiscal questions before life?
Click to expand...


Why do you think women were desperate for birth control?


----------



## Vigilante

Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?


----------



## Coyote

Vigilante said:


> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?



Don't believe every bit of propoganda you read.

That is not a 12 week old fetus.

This is: Stunning photo of Noah miscarried at 12 weeks will amaze you Live Action News


----------



## sakinago

Vigilante said:


> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?


Wow good pic. Look up the former PP head who resigned after seeing a fetus recoil in pain when the forceps squeezed down for the kill


----------



## Coyote

sakinago said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow good pic. Look up the former PP head who resigned after seeing a fetus recoil in pain when the forceps squeezed down for the kill
Click to expand...


Sure...it's a "good pic" - it's just not a 12 week old fetus.  12 week old fetus' aren't yet capable of feeling pain.


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its pretty simple........those who support this PP stuff are human POS's. Fucking ghouls!! Please remember to give me a buzz so I can be there at your deathbed as you check out.........so I can give you the big smile and thumbs up!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxpayers do not pay for abortions.
> 
> And, don't forget - keep your zipper zipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen too many bodies turned inside out in war to be squeamish by an abortion.  I've seen too many children starving or suffering to believe an unwanted infant should be brought into the world.
> 
> I've had three wonderful children and lost one early on.  I also nearly bled to death during the delivery of my second live birth.  My last I was on bed rest and suffering painful complications to this day.
> 
> Two separate times the ER told my daughter her second was dead and should be removed.  They were wrong.  He is autistic but a strong and active child.
> 
> Children are wonderful but there is no reason a women should be forced to have a child if she is not ready or does not want to.  Pregnancy is a commitment in time, body and  mind.  Raising a child is a life time.
> 
> There are many people that want to be parents and some that would gladly adopt, but there are far too many out there in the world that will never survive to their teens and millions that have no home or parents and only a fraction of them will ever be adopted.
> 
> Too many living children die every day that could be saved and the high minded right in the US living in their pretty bubble want to force a woman to have her body deformed and give birth a child she does not want.  Why aren't they each adopting 20 children, already born, instead?
> 
> Sadly girls/women are not taught about birth control and natural abortions.  They are sometimes not even aware in the first couple of weeks that they are pregnant because they are not taught the signs.
> 
> There are a million reason a woman might not want to carry, or told she should not carry, a child and unless you are in that place or actually know those women you can't really understand, but that does not give you the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.  Go find some other band wagon to jump on.
> 
> Birth is a wonderful thing, but only when you want and are ready for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When has a mother ever regretted a child outside of the sad cases of ppd like Casey Anthony? And when did it become right to put fiscal questions before life?
Click to expand...


My whole life I have heard my mother complaining that she never want to be have a child.  As she degrades mentally all those rants become more fervent and at times vulgar attacks.  In the culture oversea it was expected and an abortion was not an option.
She had us.  She raised us.  She was relatively speaking not a bad mother, but she has never made a secret of the fact she never wanted children and would have aborted us if she could have.  Thankfully our father more than made up in love and guidance.  For us it was never a question of finances, my father did very well.  My mother also had her own business in a world were that was rare.  Both my parents grew up in large families.

If you think Casey was such a rare exception you really don't get out enough.  Try reading the police and legal reports of crime charges.  Read about the abuse of children by family member including mothers.  Read the statistics of mental abuse of children by parents.  About how many of those go onto commit crimes or become abuser.  It is not just a poverty issue, but all levels of society


----------



## Vigilante

Coyote said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe every bit of propoganda you read.
> 
> That is not a 12 week old fetus.
> 
> This is: Stunning photo of Noah miscarried at 12 weeks will amaze you Live Action News
Click to expand...

OK, make it 19 weeks 6 days, and still CHOPPED UP.... feel better?


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow good pic. Look up the former PP head who resigned after seeing a fetus recoil in pain when the forceps squeezed down for the kill
Click to expand...


good looking figure but real fetus are not so well formed or that color.  Even preemies don't look like that.


----------



## Vigilante

Coyote said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow good pic. Look up the former PP head who resigned after seeing a fetus recoil in pain when the forceps squeezed down for the kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...it's a "good pic" - it's just not a 12 week old fetus.  12 week old fetus' aren't yet capable of feeling pain.
Click to expand...


How many 12 week olds have you asked? ...Or for that matter 19 week, 6 day HUMANS that are chopped up for parts?


----------



## Vigilante

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow good pic. Look up the former PP head who resigned after seeing a fetus recoil in pain when the forceps squeezed down for the kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good looking figure but real fetus are not so well formed or that color.  Even preemies don't look like that.
Click to expand...

How about it's used as a VIABLE EXAMPLE of a HUMAN at 19 weeks, 6 days?


----------



## BlueGin

Coyote said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow good pic. Look up the former PP head who resigned after seeing a fetus recoil in pain when the forceps squeezed down for the kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...it's a "good pic" - it's just not a 12 week old fetus.  12 week old fetus' aren't yet capable of feeling pain.
Click to expand...

Yes they can.

*Week Twelve: Fingernails and toenails appear*
You are 12 weeks pregnant. (fetal age 10 weeks)

The fetus is now about 2*.*5 inches (6cm) length and weighs about 0*.*7 ounce (20 g).
The feet are almost half an inch (1cm) long.
The fetus starts moving spontaneously.
The face is beginning to look like a baby's face.
The pancreas is functioning and producing insulin.
Fingernails and toenails appear.
The baby can suck his thumb, and get hiccups.


From this week you may well be able to hear the baby's heart beat through a doppler monitor on your tummy. You will notice that the rate is up to 160 a minute, double that of a normal adult.

Your baby now has a chin and a nose and a facial profile. Vocal chords are complete, and the baby can and does sometimes cry silently. The brain is fully formed, and the baby can also feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb.

The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers. The hair is on the head and the fingers and toes have developed soft nails. The kidneys are developed and begin to secrete urine.

Week 12 - Month 3 fingernails and toenails appear Fetal information over weeks months trimesters


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxpayers do not pay for abortions.
> 
> And, don't forget - keep your zipper zipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen too many bodies turned inside out in war to be squeamish by an abortion.  I've seen too many children starving or suffering to believe an unwanted infant should be brought into the world.
> 
> I've had three wonderful children and lost one early on.  I also nearly bled to death during the delivery of my second live birth.  My last I was on bed rest and suffering painful complications to this day.
> 
> Two separate times the ER told my daughter her second was dead and should be removed.  They were wrong.  He is autistic but a strong and active child.
> 
> Children are wonderful but there is no reason a women should be forced to have a child if she is not ready or does not want to.  Pregnancy is a commitment in time, body and  mind.  Raising a child is a life time.
> 
> There are many people that want to be parents and some that would gladly adopt, but there are far too many out there in the world that will never survive to their teens and millions that have no home or parents and only a fraction of them will ever be adopted.
> 
> Too many living children die every day that could be saved and the high minded right in the US living in their pretty bubble want to force a woman to have her body deformed and give birth a child she does not want.  Why aren't they each adopting 20 children, already born, instead?
> 
> Sadly girls/women are not taught about birth control and natural abortions.  They are sometimes not even aware in the first couple of weeks that they are pregnant because they are not taught the signs.
> 
> There are a million reason a woman might not want to carry, or told she should not carry, a child and unless you are in that place or actually know those women you can't really understand, but that does not give you the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.  Go find some other band wagon to jump on.
> 
> Birth is a wonderful thing, but only when you want and are ready for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When has a mother ever regretted a child outside of the sad cases of ppd like Casey Anthony? And when did it become right to put fiscal questions before life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My whole life I have heard my mother complaining that she never want to be have a child.  As she degrades mentally all those rants become more fervent and at times vulgar attacks.  In the culture oversea it was expected and an abortion was not an option.
> She had us.  She raised us.  She was relatively speaking not a bad mother, but she has never made a secret of the fact she never wanted children and would have aborted us if she could have.  Thankfully our father more than made up in love and guidance.  For us it was never a question of finances, my father did very well.  My mother also had her own business in a world were that was rare.  Both my parents grew up in large families.
> 
> If you think Casey was such a rare exception you really don't get out enough.  Try reading the police and legal reports of crime charges.  Read about the abuse of children by family member including mothers.  Read the statistics of mental abuse of children by parents.  About how many of those go onto commit crimes or become abuser.  It is not just a poverty issue, but all levels of society
Click to expand...

Mothers killing their already born children is not rare? Than why was Casey Anthony such a big case. And since they have the potential to be abused or become the abuser, their rights are forfeit? And yes social fiscal issues, same thing Germany did. We can't as a SOCIETY afford the mentally challenged, a societal burden on all of us, so we will do the humane thing and euthanize them. 

And if there were a test to find out wether or not your child would be autistic while in the womb, is that ok to abort?


----------



## Coyote

BlueGin said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow good pic. Look up the former PP head who resigned after seeing a fetus recoil in pain when the forceps squeezed down for the kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...it's a "good pic" - it's just not a 12 week old fetus.  12 week old fetus' aren't yet capable of feeling pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they can.
> 
> *Week Twelve: Fingernails and toenails appear*
> You are 12 weeks pregnant. (fetal age 10 weeks)
> 
> The fetus is now about 2*.*5 inches (6cm) length and weighs about 0*.*7 ounce (20 g).
> The feet are almost half an inch (1cm) long.
> The fetus starts moving spontaneously.
> The face is beginning to look like a baby's face.
> The pancreas is functioning and producing insulin.
> Fingernails and toenails appear.
> The baby can suck his thumb, and get hiccups.
> 
> 
> From this week you may well be able to hear the baby's heart beat through a doppler monitor on your tummy. You will notice that the rate is up to 160 a minute, double that of a normal adult.
> 
> Your baby now has a chin and a nose and a facial profile. Vocal chords are complete, and the baby can and does sometimes cry silently. The brain is fully formed, and the baby can also feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb.
> 
> The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers. The hair is on the head and the fingers and toes have developed soft nails. The kidneys are developed and begin to secrete urine.
Click to expand...


Umh...no.

Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks 
JAMA Network JAMA Fetal Pain A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence


----------



## Coyote

Vigilante said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow good pic. Look up the former PP head who resigned after seeing a fetus recoil in pain when the forceps squeezed down for the kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good looking figure but real fetus are not so well formed or that color.  Even preemies don't look like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about it's used as a VIABLE EXAMPLE of a HUMAN at 19 weeks, 6 days?
Click to expand...


Nope.

Our 19-week son lived only minutes after birth but has touched thousands PHOTOS News LifeSite

snopes.com 12-Week Fetus Photograph


----------



## Vigilante

Coyote said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow good pic. Look up the former PP head who resigned after seeing a fetus recoil in pain when the forceps squeezed down for the kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...it's a "good pic" - it's just not a 12 week old fetus.  12 week old fetus' aren't yet capable of feeling pain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they can.
> 
> *Week Twelve: Fingernails and toenails appear*
> You are 12 weeks pregnant. (fetal age 10 weeks)
> 
> The fetus is now about 2*.*5 inches (6cm) length and weighs about 0*.*7 ounce (20 g).
> The feet are almost half an inch (1cm) long.
> The fetus starts moving spontaneously.
> The face is beginning to look like a baby's face.
> The pancreas is functioning and producing insulin.
> Fingernails and toenails appear.
> The baby can suck his thumb, and get hiccups.
> 
> 
> From this week you may well be able to hear the baby's heart beat through a doppler monitor on your tummy. You will notice that the rate is up to 160 a minute, double that of a normal adult.
> 
> Your baby now has a chin and a nose and a facial profile. Vocal chords are complete, and the baby can and does sometimes cry silently. The brain is fully formed, and the baby can also feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb.
> 
> The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers. The hair is on the head and the fingers and toes have developed soft nails. The kidneys are developed and begin to secrete urine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umh...no.
> 
> Does a Fetus Feel Pain at 20 Weeks
> JAMA Network JAMA Fetal Pain A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence
Click to expand...


Seems you are disputed!

*Fact #13: The 8 week+ unborn baby feels real physical pain ... *
Fact 13 The 8 week unborn baby feels real physical pain during an abortion.
More proof that the unborn *baby feels pain* by 8 weeks. By 8 weeks the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to *feel* the *pain* ...

*Unborn babies can feel pain during abortion *
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life*feel-pain*.html
Scientific evidence reveals that unborn babies do, indeed, *feel pain* The evidence of *fetal pain* With the advent of sonograms and live-action ultrasound images ...

*Expert Tells Congress Unborn Babies Can Feel Pain Starting ...*
*LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2013/05/...babies-can-*feel*-*pain*-starting-at-8-weeks
May 23, 2013 · Knowing the unborn child *feels pain* early in pregnancy, Condic says the question is what to do then. “Imposing *pain* on any *pain*-capable living creature ...

You don't need more do you?


----------



## sakinago

Coyote said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow good pic. Look up the former PP head who resigned after seeing a fetus recoil in pain when the forceps squeezed down for the kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...it's a "good pic" - it's just not a 12 week old fetus.  12 week old fetus' aren't yet capable of feeling pain.
Click to expand...

Not much different from the 12 week, I'm guessing that's a 15 week pic. But does it matter? When should the right to life begin?? When does that baby magically attain the right to life? 3rd trimester? Roe V wade wasn't about the ethics of abortion, it was about it not being fair that some states didn't allow it. But hey let's not touch that made up 3rd trimester thing, that's too close for comfort


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe every bit of propoganda you read.
> 
> That is not a 12 week old fetus.
> 
> This is: Stunning photo of Noah miscarried at 12 weeks will amaze you Live Action News
Click to expand...


Sad, but that is accurate, though it looks a bit more than 12 weeks


----------



## Vigilante

Coyote said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow good pic. Look up the former PP head who resigned after seeing a fetus recoil in pain when the forceps squeezed down for the kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good looking figure but real fetus are not so well formed or that color.  Even preemies don't look like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about it's used as a VIABLE EXAMPLE of a HUMAN at 19 weeks, 6 days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Our 19-week son lived only minutes after birth but has touched thousands PHOTOS News LifeSite
> 
> snopes.com 12-Week Fetus Photograph
Click to expand...


And from your article, sure LOOKS about right, the color is off, as we don't know why the young one died, so COLORATION is unimportant for discussion!






*ANYONE LIKE TO DISPUTE THAT THIS LITTLE ONE IS HUMAN, AND NOT JUST A BUNCH OF CELLS?*


----------



## sakinago

For all the pro-life folks watch this video and tell me when that starts becoming ok

 Warning-Graphic A Partial Birth Abortion Filmed MRCTV

If you still have the ability to dehumanize that, then I don't know what to say


----------



## Vigilante

sakinago said:


> For all the pro-life folks watch this video and tell me when that starts becoming ok
> 
> Warning-Graphic A Partial Birth Abortion Filmed MRCTV
> 
> If you still have the ability to dehumanize that, then I don't know what to say



BUT, it isn't a LION!!!!!!


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> For all the pro-life folks watch this video and tell me when that starts becoming ok
> 
> Warning-Graphic A Partial Birth Abortion Filmed MRCTV
> 
> If you still have the ability to dehumanize that, then I don't know what to say



Later term or partial birth is done of medical reason not for choice.


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the pro-life folks watch this video and tell me when that starts becoming ok
> 
> Warning-Graphic A Partial Birth Abortion Filmed MRCTV
> 
> If you still have the ability to dehumanize that, then I don't know what to say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later term or partial birth is done of medical reason not for choice.
Click to expand...

It was legal not too long ago! And it still doesn't answer the question of when does that start becoming ok to do? Watch the video it is sick


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the pro-life folks watch this video and tell me when that starts becoming ok
> 
> Warning-Graphic A Partial Birth Abortion Filmed MRCTV
> 
> If you still have the ability to dehumanize that, then I don't know what to say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later term or partial birth is done of medical reason not for choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was legal not too long ago! And it still doesn't answer the question of when does that start becoming ok to do? Watch the video it is sick
Click to expand...


When it comes to the woman's life, why would it be wrong?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Vigilante said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow good pic. Look up the former PP head who resigned after seeing a fetus recoil in pain when the forceps squeezed down for the kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> good looking figure but real fetus are not so well formed or that color.  Even preemies don't look like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about it's used as a VIABLE EXAMPLE of a HUMAN at 19 weeks, 6 days?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Our 19-week son lived only minutes after birth but has touched thousands PHOTOS News LifeSite
> 
> snopes.com 12-Week Fetus Photograph
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And from your article, sure LOOKS about right, the color is off, as we don't know why the young one died, so COLORATION is unimportant for discussion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ANYONE LIKE TO DISPUTE THAT THIS LITTLE ONE IS HUMAN, AND NOT JUST A BUNCH OF CELLS?*
Click to expand...

Potential human (AKA person), as you can see.  You need time and luck to make it into this game.


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the pro-life folks watch this video and tell me when that starts becoming ok
> 
> Warning-Graphic A Partial Birth Abortion Filmed MRCTV
> 
> If you still have the ability to dehumanize that, then I don't know what to say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later term or partial birth is done of medical reason not for choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was legal not too long ago! And it still doesn't answer the question of when does that start becoming ok to do? Watch the video it is sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to the woman's life, why would it be wrong?
Click to expand...

Not the question, answer when does it star becoming ok. Only difference between PBA and regular abortion is time and location(still in womb). When does it become ok to do so for financial reasons and not being ready?


----------



## Vigilante

*Former Planned Parenthood Director: Abortion Biz Makes $100-$200 for Every Aborted Baby Part Sold*

lifenews.com ^ | Jul 31, 2015 | Sarah Zagorski
Former Planned Parenthood director, Abby Johnson, told The Christian Post that her old employers sometimes charged $100-$200 for each body part from aborted babies. She also explained that the money they received from it covered more than shipping and other fees. She said, “Shipping only costs a clinic $4 to $10 but they are sometimes charging $100 to $200 for each baby. They are charging additional fees, but in reality there are no additional fees except for minimal shipping costs.” Later Johnson added that Planned Parenthood found deceitful ways to get around laws that ban the sale of fetal body...


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the pro-life folks watch this video and tell me when that starts becoming ok
> 
> Warning-Graphic A Partial Birth Abortion Filmed MRCTV
> 
> If you still have the ability to dehumanize that, then I don't know what to say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later term or partial birth is done of medical reason not for choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was legal not too long ago! And it still doesn't answer the question of when does that start becoming ok to do? Watch the video it is sick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it comes to the woman's life, why would it be wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not the question, answer when does it star becoming ok. Only difference between PBA and regular abortion is time and location(still in womb). When does it become ok to do so for financial reasons and not being ready?
Click to expand...


It is OK when the woman's life is at risk and when the fetus is found to have such birth defects where they will not be able to live or will suffer and not live beyond a brief span.

Later term is not about choice or birth control.  Yes, it is a medical procedure and between the woman and her doctor for the safety of the woman.

If a person has cancer or organ failure, are you going to tell them surgical removal is not necessary?  Should the organ/tissue be on display for everyone uninformed to get grossed out over?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Vigilante said:


> *Former Planned Parenthood Director: Abortion Biz Makes $100-$200 for Every Aborted Baby Part Sold*
> 
> lifenews.com ^ | Jul 31, 2015 | Sarah Zagorski
> Former Planned Parenthood director, Abby Johnson, told The Christian Post that her old employers sometimes charged $100-$200 for each body part from aborted babies. She also explained that the money they received from it covered more than shipping and other fees. She said, “Shipping only costs a clinic $4 to $10 but they are sometimes charging $100 to $200 for each baby. They are charging additional fees, but in reality there are no additional fees except for minimal shipping costs.” Later Johnson added that Planned Parenthood found deceitful ways to get around laws that ban the sale of fetal body...


You'd make a terrible capitalist, and Abby is a loon BTW.


----------



## aris2chat

Vigilante said:


> *Former Planned Parenthood Director: Abortion Biz Makes $100-$200 for Every Aborted Baby Part Sold*
> 
> lifenews.com ^ | Jul 31, 2015 | Sarah Zagorski
> Former Planned Parenthood director, Abby Johnson, told The Christian Post that her old employers sometimes charged $100-$200 for each body part from aborted babies. She also explained that the money they received from it covered more than shipping and other fees. She said, “Shipping only costs a clinic $4 to $10 but they are sometimes charging $100 to $200 for each baby. They are charging additional fees, but in reality there are no additional fees except for minimal shipping costs.” Later Johnson added that Planned Parenthood found deceitful ways to get around laws that ban the sale of fetal body...



expenses can be charged, it is not a sale of the tissue itself.


----------



## Vigilante

*Even Snopes admits to it...*

Snopes.com ^ | 17 October 2012
"It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms...." So what does PP make money on? Certainly 97% isn't coming from mammograms.


----------



## jon_berzerk

aris2chat said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Former Planned Parenthood Director: Abortion Biz Makes $100-$200 for Every Aborted Baby Part Sold*
> 
> lifenews.com ^ | Jul 31, 2015 | Sarah Zagorski
> Former Planned Parenthood director, Abby Johnson, told The Christian Post that her old employers sometimes charged $100-$200 for each body part from aborted babies. She also explained that the money they received from it covered more than shipping and other fees. She said, “Shipping only costs a clinic $4 to $10 but they are sometimes charging $100 to $200 for each baby. They are charging additional fees, but in reality there are no additional fees except for minimal shipping costs.” Later Johnson added that Planned Parenthood found deceitful ways to get around laws that ban the sale of fetal body...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> expenses can be charged, it is not a sale of the tissue itself.
Click to expand...



--LOL

then there is no need to haggle over the $$cost$$


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Courts banned the release of more videos by anti-choice advocates.  Seems actors are behind the making of these videos.
> 
> Videos are not factual.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha it's not bc they're fake, it's bc they're real and apparently get much worse. And we also have no freedom of speech anymore...so yay. Pp admits they are
Click to expand...


Well, no, they are being stopped because the people in them didn't give permission to be recorded, and the actors in the tapes misrepresented who they were in making them. Therefore, the tapes are illegal.  Also, the group making these tapes illegally filed as a charity with the IRS, so they are probably in a lot of trouble if the government decides to come after them.


----------



## JoeB131

Vigilante said:


> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?



Um, that's a plastic model representing what a fetus looks like at 22 weeks. A fetus at 12 weeks looks like this- Much smaller, much less like a "baby".


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Courts banned the release of more videos by anti-choice advocates.  Seems actors are behind the making of these videos.
> 
> Videos are not factual.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha it's not bc they're fake, it's bc they're real and apparently get much worse. And we also have no freedom of speech anymore...so yay. Pp admits they are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, they are being stopped because the people in them didn't give permission to be recorded, and the actors in the tapes misrepresented who they were in making them. Therefore, the tapes are illegal.  Also, the group making these tapes illegally filed as a charity with the IRS, so they are probably in a lot of trouble if the government decides to come after them.
Click to expand...

that didn't stop the


JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Courts banned the release of more videos by anti-choice advocates.  Seems actors are behind the making of these videos.
> 
> Videos are not factual.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha it's not bc they're fake, it's bc they're real and apparently get much worse. And we also have no freedom of speech anymore...so yay. Pp admits they are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, no, they are being stopped because the people in them didn't give permission to be recorded, and the actors in the tapes misrepresented who they were in making them. Therefore, the tapes are illegal.  Also, the group making these tapes illegally filed as a charity with the IRS, so they are probably in a lot of trouble if the government decides to come after them.
Click to expand...

the law varies state to state, and it's the same thing with Donald sterling, and the CEO of Firefox (forget his name). So it's fine in those cases, but not for this... This is what happens when laws, regulation, and tax code, are liquid and can be selectively enforced.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the pro-life folks watch this video and tell me when that starts becoming ok
> 
> Warning-Graphic A Partial Birth Abortion Filmed MRCTV
> 
> If you still have the ability to dehumanize that, then I don't know what to say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later term or partial birth is done of medical reason not for choice.
Click to expand...


What people don't seem to realize is abortions after 21 weeks account for only 1.2% of abortions, and are strictly regulated by all states.  Third trimester abortions are done if the mother's life or health are endangered or occassionaly severe fetal deformaties that couldn't be caught earlier such as anacephaly.  People deliberately try to associate that with abortions in general.


----------



## Papageorgio

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the pro-life folks watch this video and tell me when that starts becoming ok
> 
> Warning-Graphic A Partial Birth Abortion Filmed MRCTV
> 
> If you still have the ability to dehumanize that, then I don't know what to say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later term or partial birth is done of medical reason not for choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people don't seem to realize is abortions after 21 weeks account for only 1.2% of abortions, and are strictly regulated by all states.  Third trimester abortions are done if the mother's life or health are endangered or occassionaly severe fetal deformaties that couldn't be caught earlier such as anacephaly.  People deliberately try to associate that with abortions in general.
Click to expand...


12% too high.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Coyote

Papageorgio said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the pro-life folks watch this video and tell me when that starts becoming ok
> 
> Warning-Graphic A Partial Birth Abortion Filmed MRCTV
> 
> If you still have the ability to dehumanize that, then I don't know what to say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later term or partial birth is done of medical reason not for choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people don't seem to realize is abortions after 21 weeks account for only 1.2% of abortions, and are strictly regulated by all states.  Third trimester abortions are done if the mother's life or health are endangered or occassionaly severe fetal deformaties that couldn't be caught earlier such as anacephaly.  People deliberately try to associate that with abortions in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 12% too high.
Click to expand...


1.2%

and that 1.2% is done for medically necessary reasons.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> 12% too high.



It's 1.2%, and you missed a decimal.  

And frankly, no, it really isn't.  

Anyone who is getting a late abortion like that is getting it for a darned good reason.  There is either a serious threat to the woman's health or the fetus is horribly deformed.


----------



## Vigilante

*8 Shocking Moments From 4th Planned Parenthood Video!!!!*

thefederalist.com ^ | July 30, 2015 | Mollie Hemingway
ust two days after the release of video showing Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood employees picking apart a recently aborted child for parts, the Center for Medical Progress released another video featuring a conversation with Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains VP & Medical Director Savita Ginde. Here are 8 disturbing moments from the video. 1) While Planned Parenthood’s public relations campaign resorts to euphemisms about “fetal tissue,” Planned Parenthood officials such as Ginde speak more clearly about the organs they harvest from aborted children. Here Ginde talks about organs, including “the whole brain” coming out as abortive waste.....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

* Mission Accomplished: Planned Parenthood Attacks Coordinated by High-Ranking Republican Operatives *
Jul 31, 3:08pm





Planned Parenthood is certainly the target, but its destruction is not the goal, any more than destroying ACORN was the true goal back in 2008. Destruction would be a happy side effect, but *the true goal is to destroy the pathway for women to have access to legal and safe abortions.*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

* National Abortion Federation Files Lawsuit Against Planned Parenthood Attack Group *
Jul 31, 4:03pm
comments 
by Teddy Wilson





The National Abortion Federation filed a lawsuit Friday in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prohibit the Center for Medical Progress, an anti-choice organization behind a campaign to defame Planned Parenthood, from making public any video or audio recordings and materials of NAF educational meetings.


----------



## Katzndogz

Planned Parenthood has been outed an an inhuman money driven torture group.  They deserve to be utterly destroyed to the point where such groups cannot even be contemplated.


----------



## BlueGin

Tipsycatlover said:


> Planned Parenthood has been outed an an inhuman money driven torture group.  They deserve to be utterly destroyed to the point where such groups cannot even be contemplated.


They definitely do not deserve government funding. Libs want to support PP they can do it with donations out of their own pockets.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood has been outed an an inhuman money driven torture group.  They deserve to be utterly destroyed to the point where such groups cannot even be contemplated.
> 
> 
> 
> They definitely do not deserve government funding. Libs want to support PP they can do it with donations out of their own pockets.
Click to expand...


That would be awesome. But first, how about you right wingers start funding the Military Industrial Complex out of your own pockets.  

It will be a wonderful day when the schools have enough money and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood has been outed an an inhuman money driven torture group.  They deserve to be utterly destroyed to the point where such groups cannot even be contemplated.
> 
> 
> 
> They definitely do not deserve government funding. Libs want to support PP they can do it with donations out of their own pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be awesome. But first, how about you right wingers start funding the Military Industrial Complex out of your own pockets.
> 
> It will be a wonderful day when the schools have enough money and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.
Click to expand...


Left wingers benefit from the services of the military. 

Apples and oranges.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12% too high.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's 1.2%, and you missed a decimal.
> 
> And frankly, no, it really isn't.
> 
> Anyone who is getting a late abortion like that is getting it for a darned good reason.  There is either a serious threat to the woman's health or the fetus is horribly deformed.
Click to expand...


Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.


----------



## Papageorgio

Coyote said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the pro-life folks watch this video and tell me when that starts becoming ok
> 
> Warning-Graphic A Partial Birth Abortion Filmed MRCTV
> 
> If you still have the ability to dehumanize that, then I don't know what to say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later term or partial birth is done of medical reason not for choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people don't seem to realize is abortions after 21 weeks account for only 1.2% of abortions, and are strictly regulated by all states.  Third trimester abortions are done if the mother's life or health are endangered or occassionaly severe fetal deformaties that couldn't be caught earlier such as anacephaly.  People deliberately try to associate that with abortions in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 12% too high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.2%
> 
> and that 1.2% is done for medically necessary reasons.
Click to expand...


My apologies, I didn't see the decimal.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> Apples and oranges.



How did anyone benefit from the War in Iraq other than  Haliburton?  That's actually kind of retarded.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.



You're the one who got the stat wrong.  

I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you. 

Try to educate yourself, stupid. 

The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
Click to expand...


It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
Click to expand...


Well, I really don't... but okay, i know you can't refute the facts presented that most late abortions are for a fucking good reason.  

And none of your fucking business.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
Click to expand...


Joey boy, again, you aren't credible, you have been caught in lie after lie after lie. Then you post from a left wing propaganda site. Lol! Your opinion is a bunch of lies, take care nut job.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I really don't... but okay, i know you can't refute the facts presented that most late abortions are for a fucking good reason.
> 
> And none of your fucking business.
Click to expand...


Lol! Panties in a bunch?


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did anyone benefit from the War in Iraq other than  Haliburton?  That's actually kind of retarded.
Click to expand...


You telling me you don't benefit from the military?


----------



## Coyote

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did anyone benefit from the War in Iraq other than  Haliburton?  That's actually kind of retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You telling me you don't benefit from the military?
Click to expand...


Strawman.  That isn't what he said.  Who benefited from the war in Iraq?


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood has been outed an an inhuman money driven torture group.  They deserve to be utterly destroyed to the point where such groups cannot even be contemplated.
> 
> 
> 
> They definitely do not deserve government funding. Libs want to support PP they can do it with donations out of their own pockets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be awesome. But first, how about you right wingers start funding the Military Industrial Complex out of your own pockets.
> 
> It will be a wonderful day when the schools have enough money and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.
Click to expand...

I have no choice in funding the military industrial complex, or the war on drugs, or the war on terror, and the prison industrial complex...which is why the right of conscious needs to be a priority. I will fight for your rights joe b, even if you disagree, you should not be forced to pay for it


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> Joey boy, again, you aren't credible, you have been caught in lie after lie after lie. Then you post from a left wing propaganda site. Lol! Your opinion is a bunch of lies, take care nut job.



Okay, so you really don't want to discuss the subject because it's out of your depth. I get that. 

I mean, yeah, I guess it's easier for you to whine about the rare "late" abortion because that almost looks like a baby rather than discuss how you guys would ever make a ban on abortion work. 

Maybe you should read up on how Romania's attempt to ban abortion and birth control in 1967 went.  The answer is - not well. 



Papageorgio said:


> Lol! Panties in a bunch?



Naw, I just get annoyed about how you stupid people vote for the Plutocrat's interests because you are upset the women control their own lady parts.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> You telling me you don't benefit from the military?



The military benefited from me. They enjoyed my hard work, diligence and dedication for the years I was there.  Until i figured out I wasn't really protecting America, I was protecting the interests of big corporations. 



Coyote said:


> Strawman. That isn't what he said. Who benefited from the war in Iraq?



Exactly, but she didn't want to answer that question.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> I have no choice in funding the military industrial complex, or the war on drugs, or the war on terror, and the prison industrial complex...which is why the right of conscious needs to be a priority. I will fight for your rights joe b, even if you disagree, you should not be forced to pay for it



You have a choice. it's called "an election".  

The problem you anti-choice nutters have is that most of you are too stupid to realize you are being played on this issue. 

You keep voting for Republican Politicians who wave picture of the Medical Waste in front of you and get you sooooooooo upset about the "babies", but at the end of the day, these guys keep voting to fund Planned Parenthood and appoint judges who protect the right to choose because it would be kind of fucked up if they tried to really ban it.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey boy, again, you aren't credible, you have been caught in lie after lie after lie. Then you post from a left wing propaganda site. Lol! Your opinion is a bunch of lies, take care nut job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so you really don't want to discuss the subject because it's out of your depth. I get that.
> 
> I mean, yeah, I guess it's easier for you to whine about the rare "late" abortion because that almost looks like a baby rather than discuss how you guys would ever make a ban on abortion work.
> 
> Maybe you should read up on how Romania's attempt to ban abortion and birth control in 1967 went.  The answer is - not well.
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol! Panties in a bunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, I just get annoyed about how you stupid people vote for the Plutocrat's interests because you are upset the women control their own lady parts.
Click to expand...

 No Joey boy, it is honesty that you don't have. That is why it is pointless to argue with you. You make shit up and then can't prove it. It is how dishonest nutters like you stall the discussions. When you make shit up and then stick to the BS. 

Why discuss an issue with you when time after time we catch you lying? 

I don't care if you have an opinion, but you lie to support it.

You are the one that has driven you to this point where no one trusts you. 

Look at your stupid job history bullshit, no one with a brain would believe your silly story. Then when you lie about other issues, your credibility is gone.

That is where you are at, no credibility. Sorry, blame it on me if you want, but it would be another lie.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> No Joey boy, it is honesty that you don't have. That is why it is pointless to argue with you. You make shit up and then can't prove it. It is how dishonest nutters like you stall the discussions. When you make shit up and then stick to the BS.
> 
> Why discuss an issue with you when time after time we catch you lying?
> 
> I don't care if you have an opinion, but you lie to support it.
> 
> You are the one that has driven you to this point where no one trusts you.
> 
> Look at your stupid job history bullshit, no one with a brain would believe your silly story. Then when you lie about other issues, your credibility is gone.
> 
> That is where you are at, no credibility. Sorry, blame it on me if you want, but it would be another lie.



Guy, I am enjoying the space I occupy in your head rent free, but you still haven't addressed the issue. 

DO you really think there is a woman who goes through 7 months of pregnancy and then says, "Fuck it, I'm having an abortion!" 

Does this woman exist in your universe?


----------



## Stephanie

Tipsycatlover said:


> Planned Parenthood has been outed an an inhuman money driven torture group.  They deserve to be utterly destroyed to the point where such groups cannot even be contemplated.



yep and no amount of name calling, screaming the tapes are edited, bla bla bla is going to erase that image. I just want our tax dollars defunded from them. they can go beg for money on a street corner. Hold a sign that says: need money so we can chop up aborted babies for body parts


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> [
> yep and no amount of name calling, screaming the tapes are edited, bla bla bla is going to erase that image. I just want our tax dollars defunded from them. they can go beg for money on a street corner. Hold a sign that says: need money so we can chop up aborted babies for body parts



So what you are saying is you want more poor women to die of cancer and STD's because you don't like that some women choose to have abortions?  

Is that what you are saying, Staph?


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Joey boy, it is honesty that you don't have. That is why it is pointless to argue with you. You make shit up and then can't prove it. It is how dishonest nutters like you stall the discussions. When you make shit up and then stick to the BS.
> 
> Why discuss an issue with you when time after time we catch you lying?
> 
> I don't care if you have an opinion, but you lie to support it.
> 
> You are the one that has driven you to this point where no one trusts you.
> 
> Look at your stupid job history bullshit, no one with a brain would believe your silly story. Then when you lie about other issues, your credibility is gone.
> 
> That is where you are at, no credibility. Sorry, blame it on me if you want, but it would be another lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I am enjoying the space I occupy in your head rent free, but you still haven't addressed the issue.
> 
> DO you really think there is a woman who goes through 7 months of pregnancy and then says, "Fuck it, I'm having an abortion!"
> 
> Does this woman exist in your universe?
Click to expand...


You occupy nothing of the kind, again you lie. Again, discussing anything with you is futile. You lie and lie and lie to support your bullshit.


----------



## JoeB131

So you really couldn't answer the question, then...


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> yep and no amount of name calling, screaming the tapes are edited, bla bla bla is going to erase that image. I just want our tax dollars defunded from them. they can go beg for money on a street corner. Hold a sign that says: need money so we can chop up aborted babies for body parts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is you want more poor women to die of cancer and STD's because you don't like that some women choose to have abortions?
> 
> Is that what you are saying, Staph?
Click to expand...


That isn't what she is implying Joey Boy, you lie yet again and show, why having a discussion with a full fledged liar is impossible. You prove me right so quickly.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> So you really couldn't answer the question, then...



Another lie from Joey Boy. You can't accept the truth so you lie.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> That isn't what she is implying Joey Boy, you lie yet again and show, why having a discussion with a full fledged liar is impossible. You prove me right so quickly.



Go back and read what she said.  

She wants the government to stop paying Planned Parenthood. 


The governmetn pays planned parenthood to do cancer screenings, STD Screenings, distribute birth control, etc. in poor neighborhoods that Corporate Medicine can't be bothered with.  

So she must want women to die of cancer because they are having abortions.  

Yup, you guys keep fighting that war on women. It's been going so well for you.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you really couldn't answer the question, then...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie from Joey Boy. You can't accept the truth so you lie.
Click to expand...


Bud, you are embarrassing yourself with your fanboy devotion.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what she is implying Joey Boy, you lie yet again and show, why having a discussion with a full fledged liar is impossible. You prove me right so quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read what she said.
> 
> She wants the government to stop paying Planned Parenthood.
> 
> 
> The governmetn pays planned parenthood to do cancer screenings, STD Screenings, distribute birth control, etc. in poor neighborhoods that Corporate Medicine can't be bothered with.
> 
> So she must want women to die of cancer because they are having abortions.
> 
> Yup, you guys keep fighting that war on women. It's been going so well for you.
Click to expand...


There you go with false conclusions based on your wanting to frame a conversation into a emotional yes or no. Not that simple and you Joey Boy know that. Very dishonest, again, you can't be above board on any conversation.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you really couldn't answer the question, then...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another lie from Joey Boy. You can't accept the truth so you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bud, you are embarrassing yourself with your fanboy devotion.
Click to expand...


Poor Joey Boy, hates being called out for what he is a dishonest liar.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> There you go with false conclusions based on your wanting to frame a conversation into a emotional yes or no. Not that simple and you Joey Boy know that. Very dishonest, again, you can't be above board on any conversation.



Actually, it is simple yes or no.  The government is paying PP for a service.  Do you want them to do that service or not?  

Yes or no? 



Papageorgio said:


> Poor Joey Boy, hates being called out for what he is a dishonest liar.



Yes, it's sad watching you follow me around like a puppy...


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> You telling me you don't benefit from the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The military benefited from me. They enjoyed my hard work, diligence and dedication for the years I was there.  Until i figured out I wasn't really protecting America, I was protecting the interests of big corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. That isn't what he said. Who benefited from the war in Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly, but she didn't want to answer that question.
Click to expand...


They employed you and trained you. You benefitted from the military.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go with false conclusions based on your wanting to frame a conversation into a emotional yes or no. Not that simple and you Joey Boy know that. Very dishonest, again, you can't be above board on any conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it is simple yes or no.  The government is paying PP for a service.  Do you want them to do that service or not?
> 
> Yes or no?
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Joey Boy, hates being called out for what he is a dishonest liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it's sad watching you follow me around like a puppy...
Click to expand...


Joey Boy, you simply don't deserve an answer. You have yet to acknowledge any of your lies. 

So,sad for Joey Boy.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> They employed you and trained you. You benefitted from the military.



Well, here's the thing.  I have had very little call for "Stripping down an M16" since 1992. 

Or "Filling out DD Form 362".  

So, no, they really didn't give me a benefit as much as I gave them one. For which I was paid. 

Which has nothing to do with the point that the Iraq War and the Military Industrial Complex doesn't benefit most of us paying for it now.


----------



## SassyIrishLass




----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> Joey Boy, you simply don't deserve an answer. You have yet to acknowledge any of your lies.
> 
> So,sad for Joey Boy.



No, you aren't capable of giving an answer. 

Because you really know, somewhere, that women only get late abortions when the pregnancy has gone wrong. 

But since a late fetus almost kind of looks like a baby, you get all worked up about it, because no one gives a darn about the 98.8% of abortions performed on first trimester fetuses that are the size of a kidney bean.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


>



Fat Irish Sow, I'm sure you use your personality for birth control.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fat Irish Sow, I'm sure you use your personality for birth control.
Click to expand...


Grow up, old man. Just grow the fuck up.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Grow up, old man. Just grow the fuck up.



I treat you with the shallowness you have coming.  

Now, if you came here with reasoned arguments, I'd be happy to respond in kind. 

But all you have is emotionalism and the inability to process facts.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up, old man. Just grow the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I treat you with the shallowness you have coming.
> 
> Now, if you came here with reasoned arguments, I'd be happy to respond in kind.
> 
> But all you have is emotionalism and the inability to process facts.
Click to expand...


Yawn.....step it up old man...I'm getting bored


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Yawn.....step it up old man...I'm getting bored



Oh, please, Fat Irish Sow, you get all upset about how PP disposes of medical waste... and you keep falling for the belief the GOP shares your concern.


----------



## BlueGin

SassyIrishLass said:


>



No they don't.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.....step it up old man...I'm getting bored
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please, Fat Irish Sow, you get all upset about how PP disposes of medical waste... and you keep falling for the belief the GOP shares your concern.
Click to expand...


You're getting annoying old man. I may have to put you in ignore if you don't stop following me around like a retarded puppy. 

You're a nothing, learn that and live it. Failure


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> You're getting annoying old man. I may have to put you in ignore if you don't stop following me around like a retarded puppy.
> 
> You're a nothing, learn that and live it. Failure



Whatever, honey. Have accomplished more than you.  And frankly, just because you don't see how badly I'll burn you doesn't mean I'm not doing it.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey Boy, you simply don't deserve an answer. You have yet to acknowledge any of your lies.
> 
> So,sad for Joey Boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you aren't capable of giving an answer.
> 
> Because you really know, somewhere, that women only get late abortions when the pregnancy has gone wrong.
> 
> But since a late fetus almost kind of looks like a baby, you get all worked up about it, because no one gives a darn about the 98.8% of abortions performed on first trimester fetuses that are the size of a kidney bean.
Click to expand...


I am certainly capable of giving an answer, just not to you because you are under serving of an answer from me, based on your track record. 
Again you are being dishonest with your opening statement. You will never learn.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting annoying old man. I may have to put you in ignore if you don't stop following me around like a retarded puppy.
> 
> You're a nothing, learn that and live it. Failure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever, honey. Have accomplished more than you.  And frankly, just because you don't see how badly I'll burn you doesn't mean I'm not doing it.
Click to expand...


No you haven't old man. Bank that one. You're a failure, nothing more and nothing less. Now run along, tiger. You're a redundant bore


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up, old man. Just grow the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I treat you with the shallowness you have coming.
> 
> Now, if you came here with reasoned arguments, I'd be happy to respond in kind.
> 
> But all you have is emotionalism and the inability to process facts.
Click to expand...


You don't reason nutter, you lie, it has been proven over and over.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.....step it up old man...I'm getting bored
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please, Fat Irish Sow, you get all upset about how PP disposes of medical waste... and you keep falling for the belief the GOP shares your concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're getting annoying old man. I may have to put you in ignore if you don't stop following me around like a retarded puppy.
> 
> You're a nothing, learn that and live it. Failure
Click to expand...

What is your plan to end abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law?


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.
Click to expand...


No, they show women how to plan for when they want to be parents, not the "Oh shit, I'm pregnant" you clowns think should happen.

You see, here's the problem. PP could announce tomorrow that they weren't doing fetal donations anymore, and somehow, I don't think you at FatIrishSow and PooPooGeorgio would be suddenly okay with them. 

You are upset they perform abortions, not what they do with the fetal remains of some 1% of the abortions they perform with the permission of the patient. 

But I have yet to hear you guys tell us what your alternative to there being a Planned Parenthood is. 

Sending out Bristol Palin to teach kids about abstinence? How'd that work out again?


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up, old man. Just grow the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I treat you with the shallowness you have coming.
> 
> Now, if you came here with reasoned arguments, I'd be happy to respond in kind.
> 
> But all you have is emotionalism and the inability to process facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't reason nutter, you lie, it has been proven over and over.
Click to expand...


Yes, your whining about all the times I've spanked you is duly noted. The grownups are talking now.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey Boy, you simply don't deserve an answer. You have yet to acknowledge any of your lies.
> 
> So,sad for Joey Boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you aren't capable of giving an answer.
> 
> Because you really know, somewhere, that women only get late abortions when the pregnancy has gone wrong.
> 
> But since a late fetus almost kind of looks like a baby, you get all worked up about it, because no one gives a darn about the 98.8% of abortions performed on first trimester fetuses that are the size of a kidney bean.
Click to expand...


More lies from Joey Boy. Again liar, I don't respect you enough to give answer and yet you continue to lie about my reasons, which a person like you has no clue to others reasons and thoughts.

Sorry you fail.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up, old man. Just grow the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I treat you with the shallowness you have coming.
> 
> Now, if you came here with reasoned arguments, I'd be happy to respond in kind.
> 
> But all you have is emotionalism and the inability to process facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't reason nutter, you lie, it has been proven over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your whining about all the times I've spanked you is duly noted. The grownups are talking now.
Click to expand...


Just stop, old man. You're a nothing to me, a zero. I recognized you for what you are long ago. A sad old man, upset with your miserable existence, mad at the man and blame that on your failure to succeed in life. In other words your typical liberal.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grow up, old man. Just grow the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I treat you with the shallowness you have coming.
> 
> Now, if you came here with reasoned arguments, I'd be happy to respond in kind.
> 
> But all you have is emotionalism and the inability to process facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't reason nutter, you lie, it has been proven over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, your whining about all the times I've spanked you is duly noted. The grownups are talking now.
Click to expand...


Again Joey Boy, you tell lies and untruths and think you have won. When you actually try holding an honest discussion, you will win.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Just stop, old man. You're a nothing to me, a zero. I recognized you for what you are long ago. A sad old man, upset with your miserable existence, mad at the man and blame that on your failure to succeed in life. In other words your typical liberal.



Actually, i used to be more right wing than you are. 

But that was before the retards took over the conservative movement. 

Anyone who was still a conservative after 2008 is kind of a retard.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> Again Joey Boy, you tell lies and untruths and think you have won. When you actually try holding an honest discussion, you will win.



I've already won just by the amount of space I occupy in your head.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just stop, old man. You're a nothing to me, a zero. I recognized you for what you are long ago. A sad old man, upset with your miserable existence, mad at the man and blame that on your failure to succeed in life. In other words your typical liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, i used to be more right wing than you are.
> 
> But that was before the retards took over the conservative movement.
> 
> Anyone who was still a conservative after 2008 is kind of a retard.
Click to expand...


Save the BS, old man. Your lies are "duly noted" time and time again.

This is you LMAO


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again Joey Boy, you tell lies and untruths and think you have won. When you actually try holding an honest discussion, you will win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already won just by the amount of space I occupy in your head.
Click to expand...


How many times are you going to use that tired old shit, old man? Yawn.....


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again Joey Boy, you tell lies and untruths and think you have won. When you actually try holding an honest discussion, you will win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've already won just by the amount of space I occupy in your head.
Click to expand...


Again Joey Boy, you own nothing, again you lie and think you won. You are not very bright, you can't seem to hold a job and you need to lie.


----------



## BlueGin

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just stop, old man. You're a nothing to me, a zero. I recognized you for what you are long ago. A sad old man, upset with your miserable existence, mad at the man and blame that on your failure to succeed in life. In other words your typical liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, i used to be more right wing than you are.
> 
> But that was before the retards took over the conservative movement.
> 
> Anyone who was still a conservative after 2008 is kind of a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save the BS, old man. Your lies are "duly noted" time and time again.
> 
> This is you LMAO
Click to expand...


Joe's idea of helping the poor is posting 24/7 on the internet trying to brow beat others into doing what he refuses to.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Joe's idea of helping the poor is posting 24/7 on the internet trying to brow beat others into doing what he refuses to.



NO, I could care less if you help the poor or not. 

I just don't think you should deny them birth control if you aren't willing to feed the kids that would result if they don't have it. 

There are ways to reduce abortions. But they are pretty much the opposite of everything your side stands for. Countries with thorough welfare states and cradle to grave benefits have less abortions than the  US does.  

It seems to me that if you think abortion is a moral crisis, you'd look at ways to reduce them rather than whining about what PP is doing with the medical waste.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> Again Joey Boy, you own nothing, again you lie and think you won. You are not very bright, you can't seem to hold a job and you need to lie.



Except that I have a college degree, have worked in my feild for 30 years now, and have your panties totally twisted to the point you aren't even discussing the topic. 

Which I think was something to do with how Planned Parenthood disposes of medical waste or something.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again Joey Boy, you own nothing, again you lie and think you won. You are not very bright, you can't seem to hold a job and you need to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that I have a college degree, have worked in my feild for 30 years now, and have your panties totally twisted to the point you aren't even discussing the topic.
> 
> Which I think was something to do with how Planned Parenthood disposes of medical waste or something.
Click to expand...


The old man has thrown poo at posters for the last half hour and now complains about off topic? You can't make this shit up LOL


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> The old man has thrown poo at posters for the last half hour and now complains about off topic? You can't make this shit up LOL



YOu are the ones who want to talk about me because I so badly spank you on the topic. 

For those playing along at home, it all started when Papa declared that 12% of abortions are late term because he couldn't read a decimal point.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The old man has thrown poo at posters for the last half hour and now complains about off topic? You can't make this shit up LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are the ones who want to talk about me because I so badly spank you on the topic.
> 
> For those playing along at home, it all started when Papa declared that 12% of abortions are late term because he couldn't read a decimal point.
Click to expand...


LOL I pointed our your hypocrisy and now you're spinning like a top. Silly old man.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> LOL I pointed our your hypocrisy and now you're spinning like a top. Silly old man.



No hypocrisy in here. I've thoroughly spanked you on the topic at hand- so now you've spent three pages whining about me.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL I pointed our your hypocrisy and now you're spinning like a top. Silly old man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hypocrisy in here. I've thoroughly spanked you on the topic at hand- so now you've spent three pages whining about me.
Click to expand...


LOL You are obsessed with spanking....creepy old man. Have a good day, old timer. I'm bored with you


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe's idea of helping the poor is posting 24/7 on the internet trying to brow beat others into doing what he refuses to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, I could care less if you help the poor or not.
> 
> I just don't think you should deny them birth control if you aren't willing to feed the kids that would result if they don't have it.
> 
> There are ways to reduce abortions. But they are pretty much the opposite of everything your side stands for. Countries with thorough welfare states and cradle to grave benefits have less abortions than the  US does.
> 
> It seems to me that if you think abortion is a moral crisis, you'd look at ways to reduce them rather than whining about what PP is doing with the medical waste.
Click to expand...


PP can collect " medical waste " on their own dime.

You believe in what they do.. Send them a monthly check. The government should not be funding them.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> PP can collect " medical waste " on their own dime.
> 
> You believe in what they do.. Send them a monthly check. The government should not be funding them.



The government SHOULD fund them because they have a compelling reason. 

The money that PP gets from the government funds...

Cancer Screenings
Birth Control Education
STD testing and treatment. 

The government has a COMPELLING reason for all of these things to get done.  And instead of creating another bloated, ineffective bureaucracy to do these things, this is actually the most cost effective way to get them done. 

Now, these things don't affect me directly, but the do have an effect on society.  Not doing them will cost a lot more money, which the rest of us will pay in higher taxes and higher health care premiums.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP can collect " medical waste " on their own dime.
> 
> You believe in what they do.. Send them a monthly check. The government should not be funding them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government SHOULD fund them because they have a compelling reason.
> 
> The money that PP gets from the government funds...
> 
> Cancer Screenings
> Birth Control Education
> STD testing and treatment.
> 
> The government has a COMPELLING reason for all of these things to get done.  And instead of creating another bloated, ineffective bureaucracy to do these things, this is actually the most cost effective way to get them done.
> 
> Now, these things don't affect me directly, but the do have an effect on society.  Not doing them will cost a lot more money, which the rest of us will pay in higher taxes and higher health care premiums.
Click to expand...


All health plans including Obamacare/Medicaid/Tricare/Medicare 

Cover that. PP is not needed for those services.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> [
> 
> All health plans including Obamacare/Medicaid/Tricare/Medicare
> 
> Cover that. PP is not needed for those services.



Wow, it's like we are having the food stamp argument again...

You do get that the big health care chains don't open branches in a lot of these areas, right? 

so let's be honest, you just don't like the fact they perform abortions and want to punish them for that.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> All health plans including Obamacare/Medicaid/Tricare/Medicare
> 
> Cover that. PP is not needed for those services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it's like we are having the food stamp argument again...
> 
> You do get that the big health care chains don't open branches in a lot of these areas, right?
> 
> so let's be honest, you just don't like the fact they perform abortions and want to punish them for that.
Click to expand...


Too bad the ACA is closing down all of the free clinics then huh. Guess you didn't think that through did you?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> All health plans including Obamacare/Medicaid/Tricare/Medicare
> 
> Cover that. PP is not needed for those services.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, it's like we are having the food stamp argument again...
> 
> You do get that the big health care chains don't open branches in a lot of these areas, right?
> 
> so let's be honest, you just don't like the fact they perform abortions and want to punish them for that.
Click to expand...

Correction: people don't like taxpayer money going to fund an abortion mill like Planned Parenthood.
Frankly, with Obama Care now, PP is absolutely redundant in the non abortive
services it renders.

So essentially, PP is getting half a billion tax dollars per year simply to abort human life and regardless of what the ethically challenged defenders of Planned Parenthood say, money sent to the snuff masters at
PP can't help but go towards abortion services because any tax money it
receives is fungible at it's core.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again Joey Boy, you own nothing, again you lie and think you won. You are not very bright, you can't seem to hold a job and you need to lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that I have a college degree, have worked in my feild for 30 years now, and have your panties totally twisted to the point you aren't even discussing the topic.
> 
> Which I think was something to do with how Planned Parenthood disposes of medical waste or something.
Click to expand...


A degree and 30 years of getting fired, what does that have to do with your inability to be truthful. 

Poor Joey Boy, mad because I call you out for lying and now trying to move off the fact that you lie. Again, you don't seem to bright.


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL I pointed our your hypocrisy and now you're spinning like a top. Silly old man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No hypocrisy in here. I've thoroughly spanked you on the topic at hand- so now you've spent three pages whining about me.
Click to expand...


You thoroughly lie, you have no credibility, face it Joey Boy, we have no respect for dishonest people such as yourself.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all the pro-life folks watch this video and tell me when that starts becoming ok
> 
> Warning-Graphic A Partial Birth Abortion Filmed MRCTV
> 
> If you still have the ability to dehumanize that, then I don't know what to say
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Later term or partial birth is done of medical reason not for choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people don't seem to realize is abortions after 21 weeks account for only 1.2% of abortions, and are strictly regulated by all states.  Third trimester abortions are done if the mother's life or health are endangered or occassionaly severe fetal deformaties that couldn't be caught earlier such as anacephaly.  People deliberately try to associate that with abortions in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 12% too high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.2%
> 
> and that 1.2% is done for medically necessary reasons.
Click to expand...



High risk to the mother or genetic testing that determines the fetus would not live or live only briefly and be suffering what little time it might have...........  not all genetic testing is early.  Ultra sound might also show the fetus with no brain or the brain growing outside of the body.  Defects cannot be prescreened.

later term termination is not a matter of choice but a medical decision and should be of no ones business except the woman and her doctor.


----------



## aris2chat

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
Click to expand...


Are you trying to be an @ss?

Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?

Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.

People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.

The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.

The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.

No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.

You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

aris2chat said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be an @ss?
> 
> Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?
> 
> Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.
> 
> People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.
> 
> The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.
> 
> The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.
> 
> No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.
> 
> You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.
Click to expand...


GFY doofus...oh and we have two adopted children. Ball is in your court


----------



## aris2chat

Stephanie said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood has been outed an an inhuman money driven torture group.  They deserve to be utterly destroyed to the point where such groups cannot even be contemplated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep and no amount of name calling, screaming the tapes are edited, bla bla bla is going to erase that image. I just want our tax dollars defunded from them. they can go beg for money on a street corner. Hold a sign that says: need money so we can chop up aborted babies for body parts
Click to expand...


If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.  You should to  take that right away from a woman.  Her body is her own.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

aris2chat said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood has been outed an an inhuman money driven torture group.  They deserve to be utterly destroyed to the point where such groups cannot even be contemplated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep and no amount of name calling, screaming the tapes are edited, bla bla bla is going to erase that image. I just want our tax dollars defunded from them. they can go beg for money on a street corner. Hold a sign that says: need money so we can chop up aborted babies for body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.  You should to  take that right away from a woman.  Her body is her own.
Click to expand...


If you don't want a gun....blah blah blah


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

aris2chat said:


> later term termination is not a matter of choice but a medical decision and should be of no ones business except the woman and her doctor.



No one is arguing about clearly defined medical necessity... and the pretense that such is the case is ABSURD.

Planned Parenthood serves ABSOLUTELY > ZERO < MEDICAL SERVICE OF THE LEGITIMATE VARIETY... it is an ABORTION MILL... IT EXISTS TO MURDER BABIES AND SELL THEIR CORPSES.

Planned Parenthood is the ACORN of 'Medical Service Providers'.  It is a scam which caters to children and fools.  It is a purveyor of only: Deceit, FRAUD and DEATH. 

Decent people do not allow this... and Planned Parenthood needs to be destroyed.  Entirely... with its board charged with every possible violation of the law relevant to their crimes.  Upon conviction, the worst of them should be executed, the balance imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

aris2chat said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood has been outed an an inhuman money driven torture group.  They deserve to be utterly destroyed to the point where such groups cannot even be contemplated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep and no amount of name calling, screaming the tapes are edited, bla bla bla is going to erase that image. I just want our tax dollars defunded from them. they can go beg for money on a street corner. Hold a sign that says: need money so we can chop up aborted babies for body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.  You should to  take that right away from a woman.  Her body is her own.
Click to expand...


There is NO POTENTIAL, for a right, wherein the exercise of such, directly causes another to be unable to exercise their own rights.

Thus there is NO POTENTIAL for a RIGHT to murder your own pre-born child.

Now... that said, where the pre-born baby is in medical FACT: NOT VIABLE... and its existence in the mothers womb, is a direct MEDICAL threat to the mother's life, beyond the intrinsic risks of gestation, then... just like any other circumstance wherein there represents a threat to an INNOCENT... one is morally justified to destroy that threat.

But where one INTENTIONALLY ENGAGED IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE and THAT Act results in conception... ONE IS MOST DECIDEDLY NOT: "INNOCENT".  Thus one cannot reasonably claim that the existence of the baby one conceived, represents a threat, in and of itself... which is the addled reasoning being used by the degenerates at issue.


----------



## aris2chat

SassyIrishLass said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be an @ss?
> 
> Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?
> 
> Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.
> 
> People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.
> 
> The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.
> 
> The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.
> 
> No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.
> 
> You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GFY doofus...oh and we have two adopted children. Ball is in your court
Click to expand...


We took care of several children, teens, at least on a temporary basis along with our own children.  It gave them a chance before being thrown into the foster care system and become the responsibility of the state.

My court, was over my life time, was quiet full thank you.  I've cared for the injured, the abused, disabled and dying.  If there is a score card after death, I doubt adoption would have changed anything.  I'm not about to take on another child at this point in my life.

Let those that want to dictate what a woman does to her body, take on caring for the living before they get involved in those not yet alive.  How about caring of women that are pregnant and making sure they not only eat, get medical care but stay off drugs and alcohol so they actually give birth to a healthy child that will not cost the system millions to care for.

Telling a women she can't have an abortion does not mean she will care for the fetus over the course of the pregnancy.  Healthy children have a better chance of being adopted than one with drug addiction or birth defects.  Unwanted children have a higher rate of being abused.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Too bad the ACA is closing down all of the free clinics then huh. Guess you didn't think that through did you?



Well, no, it isn't... but I know you guys really think that because you heard it on Hate Radio.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> A degree and 30 years of getting fired, what does that have to do with your inability to be truthful.
> 
> Poor Joey Boy, mad because I call you out for lying and now trying to move off the fact that you lie. Again, you don't seem to bright.



Guy, loving that space I occupy in your head.   Think it needs some drapes, it's a bit drafty in here...


----------



## SassyIrishLass

aris2chat said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be an @ss?
> 
> Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?
> 
> Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.
> 
> People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.
> 
> The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.
> 
> The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.
> 
> No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.
> 
> You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GFY doofus...oh and we have two adopted children. Ball is in your court
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We took care of several children, teens, at least on a temporary basis along with our own children.  It gave them a chance before being thrown into the foster care system and become the responsibility of the state.
> 
> My court, was over my life time, was quiet full thank you.  I've cared for the injured, the abused, disabled and dying.  If there is a score card after death, I doubt adoption would have changed anything.  I'm not about to take on another child at this point in my life.
> 
> Let those that want to dictate what a woman does to her body, take on caring for the living before they get involved in those not yet alive.  How about caring of women that are pregnant and making sure they not only eat, get medical care but stay off drugs and alcohol so they actually give birth to a healthy child that will not cost the system millions to care for.
> 
> Telling a women she can't have an abortion does not mean she will care for the fetus over the course of the pregnancy.  Healthy children have a better chance of being adopted than one with drug addiction or birth defects.  Unwanted children have a higher rate of being abused.
Click to expand...


I suggest you don't go around telling me to adopt when it's obvious you're clueless.


----------



## aris2chat

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood has been outed an an inhuman money driven torture group.  They deserve to be utterly destroyed to the point where such groups cannot even be contemplated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep and no amount of name calling, screaming the tapes are edited, bla bla bla is going to erase that image. I just want our tax dollars defunded from them. they can go beg for money on a street corner. Hold a sign that says: need money so we can chop up aborted babies for body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.  You should to  take that right away from a woman.  Her body is her own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is NO POTENTIAL, for a right, wherein the exercise of such, directly causes another to be unable to exercise their own rights.
> 
> Thus there is NO POTENTIAL for a RIGHT to murder your own pre-born child.
> 
> Now... that said, where the pre-born baby is in medical FACT: NOT VIABLE... and its existence in the mothers womb, is a direct MEDICAL threat to the mother's life, beyond the intrinsic risks of gestation, then... just like any other circumstance wherein there represents a threat to an INNOCENT... one is morally justified to destroy that threat.
> 
> But where one INTENTIONALLY ENGAGED IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE and THAT Act results in conception... ONE IS MOST DECIDEDLY NOT: "INNOCENT".  Thus one cannot reasonably claim that the existence of the baby one conceived, represents a threat, in and of itself... which is the addled reasoning being used by the degenerates at issue.
Click to expand...



Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion

You have not right to treat a women like a breeding slave.  She has a right over her own body.


----------



## JoeB131

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Correction: people don't like taxpayer money going to fund an abortion mill like Planned Parenthood.
> Frankly, with Obama Care now, PP is absolutely redundant in the non abortive
> services it renders.
> 
> So essentially, PP is getting half a billion tax dollars per year simply to abort human life and regardless of what the ethically challenged defenders of Planned Parenthood say, money sent to the snuff masters at
> PP can't help but go towards abortion services because any tax money it
> receives is fungible at it's core.



Actually, people are just fine with their tax money going to fund PP's non-abortion work. 

Poll 63 percent oppose defunding Planned Parenthood TheHill

and the half billion it gets a year - less money than we spend on a fighter jet - goes to all sorts of services like cancer screenings, STD Treatment and things that are actually pretty good.


----------



## JoeB131

Papageorgio said:


> You thoroughly lie, you have no credibility, face it Joey Boy, we have no respect for dishonest people such as yourself.



Yes, those spankings must hurt a lot...


----------



## aris2chat

SassyIrishLass said:


>



of course they do

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/prenatal-care
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/pregnant-now-what/parenting


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxpayers do not pay for abortions.
> 
> And, don't forget - keep your zipper zipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen too many bodies turned inside out in war to be squeamish by an abortion.  I've seen too many children starving or suffering to believe an unwanted infant should be brought into the world.
> 
> I've had three wonderful children and lost one early on.  I also nearly bled to death during the delivery of my second live birth.  My last I was on bed rest and suffering painful complications to this day.
> 
> Two separate times the ER told my daughter her second was dead and should be removed.  They were wrong.  He is autistic but a strong and active child.
> 
> Children are wonderful but there is no reason a women should be forced to have a child if she is not ready or does not want to.  Pregnancy is a commitment in time, body and  mind.  Raising a child is a life time.
> 
> There are many people that want to be parents and some that would gladly adopt, but there are far too many out there in the world that will never survive to their teens and millions that have no home or parents and only a fraction of them will ever be adopted.
> 
> Too many living children die every day that could be saved and the high minded right in the US living in their pretty bubble want to force a woman to have her body deformed and give birth a child she does not want.  Why aren't they each adopting 20 children, already born, instead?
> 
> Sadly girls/women are not taught about birth control and natural abortions.  They are sometimes not even aware in the first couple of weeks that they are pregnant because they are not taught the signs.
> 
> There are a million reason a woman might not want to carry, or told she should not carry, a child and unless you are in that place or actually know those women you can't really understand, but that does not give you the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.  Go find some other band wagon to jump on.
> 
> Birth is a wonderful thing, but only when you want and are ready for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *When has a mother ever regretted a child *outside of the sad cases of ppd like Casey Anthony? And when did it become right to put fiscal questions before life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you think women were desperate for birth control?
Click to expand...


There's a big difference between "I would rather not become pregnant at this time" and "I regret my child."

Of the three pregnancies I've had - all resulting in live births - only one was intended.  Although I used birth control to avoid pregnancy the rest of the time, when those pregnancies happened otherwise, I did not regret them, nor have I ever regretted the existence of those two children.  Intended or not, they are wonderful human beings who have been welcome additions to my life.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you see the arms, legs and HEAD crushed, and the removal with a tweezer of body parts?.... I can, I've seen the actual pictures..... Now why aren't convicts that are put to death have their ORGANS harvested?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow good pic. Look up the former PP head who resigned after seeing a fetus recoil in pain when the forceps squeezed down for the kill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure...it's a "good pic" - it's just not a 12 week old fetus.  12 week old fetus' aren't yet capable of feeling pain.
Click to expand...


What's your point?  Paraplegics can't feel pain on their paralyzed limbs, but I still wouldn't shrug at someone crushing them with hammers or something.


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might not like it but PP did not commit a crime. It is not illegal to use tissue for research.  They can charge a price for the expenses and did not 'profit' from the transfer of tissue.
> 
> Get rid of PP and every doctor and OB/GYN will have to take on the performance of education and abortions.  It is a woman's right to choose under the law.  Women are not slaves.  I'd rather see personal doctors required to carry out abortions than a handful of distant clinics, I also think they should be covered in full by 'all' medical insurance.........and all tissue should be turned over to labs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxpayers do not pay for abortions.
> 
> And, don't forget - keep your zipper zipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen too many bodies turned inside out in war to be squeamish by an abortion.  I've seen too many children starving or suffering to believe an unwanted infant should be brought into the world.
> 
> I've had three wonderful children and lost one early on.  I also nearly bled to death during the delivery of my second live birth.  My last I was on bed rest and suffering painful complications to this day.
> 
> Two separate times the ER told my daughter her second was dead and should be removed.  They were wrong.  He is autistic but a strong and active child.
> 
> Children are wonderful but there is no reason a women should be forced to have a child if she is not ready or does not want to.  Pregnancy is a commitment in time, body and  mind.  Raising a child is a life time.
> 
> There are many people that want to be parents and some that would gladly adopt, but there are far too many out there in the world that will never survive to their teens and millions that have no home or parents and only a fraction of them will ever be adopted.
> 
> Too many living children die every day that could be saved and the high minded right in the US living in their pretty bubble want to force a woman to have her body deformed and give birth a child she does not want.  Why aren't they each adopting 20 children, already born, instead?
> 
> Sadly girls/women are not taught about birth control and natural abortions.  They are sometimes not even aware in the first couple of weeks that they are pregnant because they are not taught the signs.
> 
> There are a million reason a woman might not want to carry, or told she should not carry, a child and unless you are in that place or actually know those women you can't really understand, but that does not give you the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.  Go find some other band wagon to jump on.
> 
> Birth is a wonderful thing, but only when you want and are ready for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When has a mother ever regretted a child outside of the sad cases of ppd like Casey Anthony? And when did it become right to put fiscal questions before life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My whole life I have heard my mother complaining that she never want to be have a child.  As she degrades mentally all those rants become more fervent and at times vulgar attacks.  In the culture oversea it was expected and an abortion was not an option.
> She had us.  She raised us.  She was relatively speaking not a bad mother, but she has never made a secret of the fact she never wanted children and would have aborted us if she could have.  Thankfully our father more than made up in love and guidance.  For us it was never a question of finances, my father did very well.  My mother also had her own business in a world were that was rare.  Both my parents grew up in large families.
> 
> If you think Casey was such a rare exception you really don't get out enough.  Try reading the police and legal reports of crime charges.  Read about the abuse of children by family member including mothers.  Read the statistics of mental abuse of children by parents.  About how many of those go onto commit crimes or become abuser.  It is not just a poverty issue, but all levels of society
Click to expand...


I'm sorry you had a shitty mother, but possibly you should visit a therapist and get over the trauma, rather than projecting it onto women in general.  You're old enough by now to understand that the childhood belief that whatever your parents do is "normal" is incorrect.


----------



## aris2chat

SassyIrishLass said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just stop, old man. You're a nothing to me, a zero. I recognized you for what you are long ago. A sad old man, upset with your miserable existence, mad at the man and blame that on your failure to succeed in life. In other words your typical liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, i used to be more right wing than you are.
> 
> But that was before the retards took over the conservative movement.
> 
> Anyone who was still a conservative after 2008 is kind of a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save the BS, old man. Your lies are "duly noted" time and time again.
> 
> This is you LMAO
Click to expand...


You can find clips to post but not a basic search for the facts on planned parenthood.  So who is the one jerking off?
Try the facts instead of posting lies and disinformation.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

aris2chat said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just stop, old man. You're a nothing to me, a zero. I recognized you for what you are long ago. A sad old man, upset with your miserable existence, mad at the man and blame that on your failure to succeed in life. In other words your typical liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, i used to be more right wing than you are.
> 
> But that was before the retards took over the conservative movement.
> 
> Anyone who was still a conservative after 2008 is kind of a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Save the BS, old man. Your lies are "duly noted" time and time again.
> 
> This is you LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can find clips to post but not a basic search for the facts on planned parenthood.  So who is the one jerking off?
> Try the facts instead of posting lies and disinformation.
Click to expand...


I know all I need to know about Murder Inc. Now scram, you annoy me


----------



## aris2chat

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> PP can collect " medical waste " on their own dime.
> 
> You believe in what they do.. Send them a monthly check. The government should not be funding them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government SHOULD fund them because they have a compelling reason.
> 
> The money that PP gets from the government funds...
> 
> Cancer Screenings
> Birth Control Education
> STD testing and treatment.
> 
> The government has a COMPELLING reason for all of these things to get done.  And instead of creating another bloated, ineffective bureaucracy to do these things, this is actually the most cost effective way to get them done.
> 
> Now, these things don't affect me directly, but the do have an effect on society.  Not doing them will cost a lot more money, which the rest of us will pay in higher taxes and higher health care premiums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All health plans including Obamacare/Medicaid/Tricare/Medicare
> 
> Cover that. PP is not needed for those services.
Click to expand...




Planned Parenthood and Fetal Research Why Our Policies Don t Need to Change
How exactly fetal tissue is used for medicine - CNN.com
Actually We Should Encourage Women Who Have Abortions to Donate Fetal Tissue to Science - Hit Run Reason.com
http://www.newsweek.com/women-who-have-abortions-should-donate-fetal-tissue-science-358547


----------



## Papageorgio

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> A degree and 30 years of getting fired, what does that have to do with your inability to be truthful.
> 
> Poor Joey Boy, mad because I call you out for lying and now trying to move off the fact that you lie. Again, you don't seem to bright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, loving that space I occupy in your head.   Think it needs some drapes, it's a bit drafty in here...
Click to expand...


Poor disrespected Joe, he will never learn. He has to respond to me every time.


----------



## Papageorgio

Cecilie1200 said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course..........all feminist bulldogs possess morality levels of a small soap dish. The level of selfish is astounding.
> 
> PP? Fine.....but not with taxpayer dollars to fund these morticians.
> 
> 
> Lastly and most importantly..........keep the legs closed if you're a pseudo-human!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxpayers do not pay for abortions.
> 
> And, don't forget - keep your zipper zipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've seen too many bodies turned inside out in war to be squeamish by an abortion.  I've seen too many children starving or suffering to believe an unwanted infant should be brought into the world.
> 
> I've had three wonderful children and lost one early on.  I also nearly bled to death during the delivery of my second live birth.  My last I was on bed rest and suffering painful complications to this day.
> 
> Two separate times the ER told my daughter her second was dead and should be removed.  They were wrong.  He is autistic but a strong and active child.
> 
> Children are wonderful but there is no reason a women should be forced to have a child if she is not ready or does not want to.  Pregnancy is a commitment in time, body and  mind.  Raising a child is a life time.
> 
> There are many people that want to be parents and some that would gladly adopt, but there are far too many out there in the world that will never survive to their teens and millions that have no home or parents and only a fraction of them will ever be adopted.
> 
> Too many living children die every day that could be saved and the high minded right in the US living in their pretty bubble want to force a woman to have her body deformed and give birth a child she does not want.  Why aren't they each adopting 20 children, already born, instead?
> 
> Sadly girls/women are not taught about birth control and natural abortions.  They are sometimes not even aware in the first couple of weeks that they are pregnant because they are not taught the signs.
> 
> There are a million reason a woman might not want to carry, or told she should not carry, a child and unless you are in that place or actually know those women you can't really understand, but that does not give you the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.  Go find some other band wagon to jump on.
> 
> Birth is a wonderful thing, but only when you want and are ready for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When has a mother ever regretted a child outside of the sad cases of ppd like Casey Anthony? And when did it become right to put fiscal questions before life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My whole life I have heard my mother complaining that she never want to be have a child.  As she degrades mentally all those rants become more fervent and at times vulgar attacks.  In the culture oversea it was expected and an abortion was not an option.
> She had us.  She raised us.  She was relatively speaking not a bad mother, but she has never made a secret of the fact she never wanted children and would have aborted us if she could have.  Thankfully our father more than made up in love and guidance.  For us it was never a question of finances, my father did very well.  My mother also had her own business in a world were that was rare.  Both my parents grew up in large families.
> 
> If you think Casey was such a rare exception you really don't get out enough.  Try reading the police and legal reports of crime charges.  Read about the abuse of children by family member including mothers.  Read the statistics of mental abuse of children by parents.  About how many of those go onto commit crimes or become abuser.  It is not just a poverty issue, but all levels of society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you had a shitty mother, but possibly you should visit a therapist and get over the trauma, rather than projecting it onto women in general.  You're old enough by now to understand that the childhood belief that whatever your parents do is "normal" is incorrect.
Click to expand...


I feel bad for him/her, they go through life knowing they should have been aborted and were not. Such is life though, get through it and move on.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> I know all I need to know about Murder Inc. Now scram, you annoy me



YOu know, part of the process of arguing is not to tell people to "Scram" when they've spanked you.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad the ACA is closing down all of the free clinics then huh. Guess you didn't think that through did you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, it isn't... but I know you guys really think that because you heard it on Hate Radio.
Click to expand...


Nope I work for a hospital. I've seen it first hand and get notified when they close or need funding to stay open.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> Nope I work for a hospital. I've seen it first hand and get notified when they close or need funding to stay open.



Okay, sure, whatever.  

I've been hearing "the sky if falling" from you g uys for five years now.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I work for a hospital. I've seen it first hand and get notified when they close or need funding to stay open.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, sure, whatever.
> 
> I've been hearing "the sky if falling" from you g uys for five years now.
Click to expand...

Free clinics close down after patients gain coverage under ACA - FierceHealthcare


----------



## BlueGin

More Hospitals Closing Due to Obamacare - Freedom Outpost


----------



## BlueGin

I can do this all day. How many do you need?


----------



## aris2chat

Fetal tissue research for ALS Planned Parenthood videos leave out that donations after abortion can save lives.
Cellular Transplantation Strategies for Spinal Cord Injury and Translational Neurobiology

Fetal tissue used to study ALS and spinal injuries


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

JoeB131 said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: people don't like taxpayer money going to fund an abortion mill like Planned Parenthood.
> Frankly, with Obama Care now, PP is absolutely redundant in the non abortive
> services it renders.
> 
> So essentially, PP is getting half a billion tax dollars per year simply to abort human life and regardless of what the ethically challenged defenders of Planned Parenthood say, money sent to the snuff masters at
> PP can't help but go towards abortion services because any tax money it
> receives is fungible at it's core.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, people are just fine with their tax money going to fund PP's non-abortion work.
> 
> Poll 63 percent oppose defunding Planned Parenthood TheHill
> 
> and the half billion it gets a year - less money than we spend on a fighter jet - goes to all sorts of services like cancer screenings, STD Treatment and things that are actually pretty good.
Click to expand...

It's bull shit as this poll was _paid for_ by Planned Parenthood and conducted on an unknown sample group by a democrat polling firm. Wow! Color me shocked.

On the other hand..."A CNN/ORC International survey also indicates that a majority opposes taxpayer money being used to pay for abortions for women who can't afford the procedure, with Americans split on whether women who receive government subsidies for health insurance should be able to get a plan that covers abortions."

Tell me why we should spend half a billion dollars per year on a partisan abortion mill when all the non abortion health care services are already provided and paid for by Obama Care? It's wasteful and redundant and the parasite PP needs to stop sucking off the government teat.


----------



## aris2chat

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: people don't like taxpayer money going to fund an abortion mill like Planned Parenthood.
> Frankly, with Obama Care now, PP is absolutely redundant in the non abortive
> services it renders.
> 
> So essentially, PP is getting half a billion tax dollars per year simply to abort human life and regardless of what the ethically challenged defenders of Planned Parenthood say, money sent to the snuff masters at
> PP can't help but go towards abortion services because any tax money it
> receives is fungible at it's core.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, people are just fine with their tax money going to fund PP's non-abortion work.
> 
> Poll 63 percent oppose defunding Planned Parenthood TheHill
> 
> and the half billion it gets a year - less money than we spend on a fighter jet - goes to all sorts of services like cancer screenings, STD Treatment and things that are actually pretty good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's bull shit as this poll was _paid for_ by Planned Parenthood and conducted on an unknown sample group by a democrat polling firm. Wow! Color me shocked.
> "A CNN/ORC International survey also indicates that a majority opposes taxpayer money being used to pay for abortions for women who can't afford the procedure, with Americans split on whether women who receive government subsidies for health insurance should be able to get a plan that covers abortions."
> 
> Tell me why we should spend half a billion dollars per year on a partisan abortion mill when all the non abortion health care services are already provided and paid for by Obama Care? It's wasteful and redundant and the parasite PP needs to stop sucking off the government teat.
Click to expand...



America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos Poll
APHA reproductive health advocates support Planned Parenthood in letter to Congress Public Health Newswire
Political Attacks on Planned Parenthood Are a Threat to Women s Health - Scientific American


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

aris2chat said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: people don't like taxpayer money going to fund an abortion mill like Planned Parenthood.
> Frankly, with Obama Care now, PP is absolutely redundant in the non abortive
> services it renders.
> 
> So essentially, PP is getting half a billion tax dollars per year simply to abort human life and regardless of what the ethically challenged defenders of Planned Parenthood say, money sent to the snuff masters at
> PP can't help but go towards abortion services because any tax money it
> receives is fungible at it's core.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, people are just fine with their tax money going to fund PP's non-abortion work.
> 
> Poll 63 percent oppose defunding Planned Parenthood TheHill
> 
> and the half billion it gets a year - less money than we spend on a fighter jet - goes to all sorts of services like cancer screenings, STD Treatment and things that are actually pretty good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's bull shit as this poll was _paid for_ by Planned Parenthood and conducted on an unknown sample group by a democrat polling firm. Wow! Color me shocked.
> "A CNN/ORC International survey also indicates that a majority opposes taxpayer money being used to pay for abortions for women who can't afford the procedure, with Americans split on whether women who receive government subsidies for health insurance should be able to get a plan that covers abortions."
> 
> Tell me why we should spend half a billion dollars per year on a partisan abortion mill when all the non abortion health care services are already provided and paid for by Obama Care? It's wasteful and redundant and the parasite PP needs to stop sucking off the government teat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos Poll
> APHA reproductive health advocates support Planned Parenthood in letter to Congress Public Health Newswire
> Political Attacks on Planned Parenthood Are a Threat to Women s Health - Scientific American
Click to expand...

How long did it take for you to cobble together your cut and paste "argument"?
You really deserve no attention or credence until you yourself can give people a rational reason to think you have a point.


----------



## Gracie

Well, since selling DEAD body parts is a no no..I guess those on waiting lists for hearts, lungs, eyeballs, kidneys, etc are shit outta luck.


----------



## aris2chat

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correction: people don't like taxpayer money going to fund an abortion mill like Planned Parenthood.
> Frankly, with Obama Care now, PP is absolutely redundant in the non abortive
> services it renders.
> 
> So essentially, PP is getting half a billion tax dollars per year simply to abort human life and regardless of what the ethically challenged defenders of Planned Parenthood say, money sent to the snuff masters at
> PP can't help but go towards abortion services because any tax money it
> receives is fungible at it's core.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, people are just fine with their tax money going to fund PP's non-abortion work.
> 
> Poll 63 percent oppose defunding Planned Parenthood TheHill
> 
> and the half billion it gets a year - less money than we spend on a fighter jet - goes to all sorts of services like cancer screenings, STD Treatment and things that are actually pretty good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's bull shit as this poll was _paid for_ by Planned Parenthood and conducted on an unknown sample group by a democrat polling firm. Wow! Color me shocked.
> "A CNN/ORC International survey also indicates that a majority opposes taxpayer money being used to pay for abortions for women who can't afford the procedure, with Americans split on whether women who receive government subsidies for health insurance should be able to get a plan that covers abortions."
> 
> Tell me why we should spend half a billion dollars per year on a partisan abortion mill when all the non abortion health care services are already provided and paid for by Obama Care? It's wasteful and redundant and the parasite PP needs to stop sucking off the government teat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos Poll
> APHA reproductive health advocates support Planned Parenthood in letter to Congress Public Health Newswire
> Political Attacks on Planned Parenthood Are a Threat to Women s Health - Scientific American
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How long did it take for you to cobble together your cut and paste "argument"?
> You really deserve no attention or credence until you yourself can give people a rational reason to think you have a point.
Click to expand...


I've said quite a lot on the subject, in my own words.  Two of the articles are current regarding the support of the PP.  Just presenting balanced and factual information.
I did not have to take time, I read the news and follow a number of subjects, so I try to stay informed.  The information was already at my finger tips.

Sorry but I was not online yesterday or I would have shared it sooner.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I work for a hospital. I've seen it first hand and get notified when they close or need funding to stay open.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, sure, whatever.
> 
> I've been hearing "the sky if falling" from you g uys for five years now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free clinics close down after patients gain coverage under ACA - FierceHealthcare
Click to expand...


Did you actually read the article?  

Several free clinics in different parts of the country are closing their doors as a result of the Affordable Care Act--_*and their doctors couldn't be happier about it,Thinking Points Memo reported.*_

RotaCare Tacoma clinic in Washington state, run by volunteer doctors and nurses, helped all of its 150 patients--most of whom had chronic conditions like diabetes--*enroll in the new health insurance coverage and didn't have anyone left to serve, according to the article, closing the clinic doors earlier this year.*


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> I can do this all day. How many do you need?



If they are as retarded as the ones you posted, then you are going to be kind of sad all day. 

As opposed to most days, when you are kind of fucking sad.  

Man, why do those poor people have to be poor. Don't they got no ambition like you do?


----------



## JoeB131

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> It's bull shit as this poll was _paid for_ by Planned Parenthood and conducted on an unknown sample group by a democrat polling firm. Wow! Color me shocked.
> 
> On the other hand..."A CNN/ORC International survey also indicates that a majority opposes taxpayer money being used to pay for abortions for women who can't afford the procedure, with Americans split on whether women who receive government subsidies for health insurance should be able to get a plan that covers abortions."



Okay, guy, tax payers aren't paying for abortions.  



Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Tell me why we should spend half a billion dollars per year on a partisan abortion mill when all the non abortion health care services are already provided and paid for by Obama Care? It's wasteful and redundant and the parasite PP needs to stop sucking off the government teat.



Well, I know that this probably isn't clear to you... but the only place you will find doctors who specialize in the "Lady Parts" are ones that ALSO perform abortions.  I know this is a difficult concept for you, but most doctors don't do the lady parts... Too much fucking liability, which is why we have a shortage of OB/GYN's.  

Ob-Gyn Shortage Is Going to Get Worse Pregnancy Health Care

_Yet doctors who perform childbirth duties are becoming increasingly scarce. Data from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) projects a shortfall of between 9,000 and 14,000 obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) in the next 20 years, and an ACOG survey found that 1 in 7 ob-gyns has stopped delivering babies. More than 20 states are now in "Red Alert" crisis mode — meaning the number of ob-gyns isn't sufficient to meet patients' needs._


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I work for a hospital. I've seen it first hand and get notified when they close or need funding to stay open.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, sure, whatever.
> 
> I've been hearing "the sky if falling" from you g uys for five years now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free clinics close down after patients gain coverage under ACA - FierceHealthcare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you actually read the article?
> 
> Several free clinics in different parts of the country are closing their doors as a result of the Affordable Care Act--_*and their doctors couldn't be happier about it,Thinking Points Memo reported.*_
> 
> RotaCare Tacoma clinic in Washington state, run by volunteer doctors and nurses, helped all of its 150 patients--most of whom had chronic conditions like diabetes--*enroll in the new health insurance coverage and didn't have anyone left to serve, according to the article, closing the clinic doors earlier this year.*
Click to expand...


And? They are still closed due to the ACA as are many others. Not just free clinics but group homes that service mental health issues.

Some are happy some aren't ...they just lost or are losing funding.

You have a point? Besides the one on your head?


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> And? They are still closed due to the ACA as are many others. Not just free clinics but group homes that service mental health issues.
> 
> Some are happy some aren't ...they just lost or are losing funding.
> 
> You have a point? Besides the one on your head?



THey are closed because services can be gotten at regular hospitals now that people can get insurance.  

I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but for those who don't go around life saying "Fuck The Poor", this is a GOOD thing.  

Which has nothing to do with PP still being needed to provide specialized treatment...


----------



## aris2chat

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? They are still closed due to the ACA as are many others. Not just free clinics but group homes that service mental health issues.
> 
> Some are happy some aren't ...they just lost or are losing funding.
> 
> You have a point? Besides the one on your head?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THey are closed because services can be gotten at regular hospitals now that people can get insurance.
> 
> I know this is a hard concept for you to grasp, but for those who don't go around life saying "Fuck The Poor", this is a GOOD thing.
> 
> Which has nothing to do with PP still being needed to provide specialized treatment...
Click to expand...


Care at a hospital still costs more and insurance companies don't want the expense.  Medical insurance for the doctors is also making specialties out priced and insurance does not pay the doctors enough.


----------



## JoeB131

aris2chat said:


> Care at a hospital still costs more and insurance companies don't want the expense. Medical insurance for the doctors is also making specialties out priced and insurance does not pay the doctors enough.



I don't disagree.  We have a long way to go to fix our broken medical system.  

Letting a bunch of religious nuts limit options isn't going to get us any closer to fixing it.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be an @ss?
> 
> Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?
> 
> Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.
> 
> People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.
> 
> The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.
> 
> The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.
> 
> No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.
> 
> You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.
Click to expand...


Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be an @ss?
> 
> Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?
> 
> Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.
> 
> People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.
> 
> The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.
> 
> The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.
> 
> No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.
> 
> You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.
Click to expand...


We know the parent of one of ours, the other's mother passed away. We've invited the living mother to be part of his life but she has refused so far.


----------



## Coyote

SassyIrishLass said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be an @ss?
> 
> Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?
> 
> Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.
> 
> People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.
> 
> The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.
> 
> The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.
> 
> No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.
> 
> You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know the parent of one of ours, the other's mother passed away. We've invited the living mother to be part of his life but she has refused so far.
Click to expand...


That's a wonderful offer from you


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Coyote said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be an @ss?
> 
> Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?
> 
> Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.
> 
> People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.
> 
> The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.
> 
> The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.
> 
> No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.
> 
> You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know the parent of one of ours, the other's mother passed away. We've invited the living mother to be part of his life but she has refused so far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a wonderful offer from you
Click to expand...


Thank you. It's only right, I think he needs to know her but unless she has an interest it's no use.He's a great kid and our son


----------



## Faun

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
Click to expand...

The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.


----------



## FA_Q2

Coyote said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did anyone benefit from the War in Iraq other than  Haliburton?  That's actually kind of retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You telling me you don't benefit from the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  That isn't what he said.  Who benefited from the war in Iraq?
Click to expand...

It is interesting that you felt the need to point that out when his asinine question  was a straw man itself - she never stated that the Iraq war benefited everyone but that the MILITARY benefited everyone.  That is simply a fact that is painfully obvious.

Of course, that in itself is an asinine line of questioning anyway because it was assuming that the right is somehow the vaunted pro military action party when that has ceased to be the case.  In general, both parties are now active war mongers and this president has presided in an expansion of overseas military action all over the place.  Fewer troops on the ground (though we are going BACK to Iraq), a lot more missiles blowing shit up.

I don't really see the real advantage here.


----------



## HenryBHough

So somebody please share with us why you liberals are so cool with parting-out babies but get your little titties in a wringer when some Muslim beheads an adult.  Especially since, comparatively, the beheadings are miniscule in number.


----------



## Coyote

FA_Q2 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did anyone benefit from the War in Iraq other than  Haliburton?  That's actually kind of retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You telling me you don't benefit from the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  That isn't what he said.  Who benefited from the war in Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is interesting that you felt the need to point that out when his asinine question  was a straw man itself - she never stated that the Iraq war benefited everyone but that the MILITARY benefited everyone.  That is simply a fact that is painfully obvious.
> 
> Of course, that in itself is an asinine line of questioning anyway because it was assuming that the right is somehow the vaunted pro military action party when that has ceased to be the case.  In general, both parties are now active war mongers and this president has presided in an expansion of overseas military action all over the place.  Fewer troops on the ground (though we are going BACK to Iraq), a lot more missiles blowing shit up.
> 
> I don't really see the real advantage here.
Click to expand...


She said :  
Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.

He brought up a specific conflict and asked how did anyone benefit in that?

That isn't a strawman.


----------



## FA_Q2

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be an @ss?
> 
> Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?
> 
> Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.
> 
> People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.
> 
> The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.
> 
> The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.
> 
> No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.
> 
> You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.
Click to expand...

Really?  It is her choice and no one else?  Are you POSITIVE about that?

Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.  

I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already.  Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.


----------



## Faun

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "minimal" fees are negotiable? LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can be when you don't know how much the expenses are. She can't even afford a tune up on a Lamborghini, no less purchasing one, making a few dollars on such a transaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because God knows, PP only butchers a few babies here and there.  It's not like they're doing a ghastly volume business in fetal corpses, or anything.
Click to expand...

Your strawman aside, the woman from PP in that video intimated she was somewhat removed from the costs of those services. It's highly plausible she was indeed not up to date with the current costs involved.


----------



## FA_Q2

Coyote said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did anyone benefit from the War in Iraq other than  Haliburton?  That's actually kind of retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You telling me you don't benefit from the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  That isn't what he said.  Who benefited from the war in Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is interesting that you felt the need to point that out when his asinine question  was a straw man itself - she never stated that the Iraq war benefited everyone but that the MILITARY benefited everyone.  That is simply a fact that is painfully obvious.
> 
> Of course, that in itself is an asinine line of questioning anyway because it was assuming that the right is somehow the vaunted pro military action party when that has ceased to be the case.  In general, both parties are now active war mongers and this president has presided in an expansion of overseas military action all over the place.  Fewer troops on the ground (though we are going BACK to Iraq), a lot more missiles blowing shit up.
> 
> I don't really see the real advantage here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She said :
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> He brought up a specific conflict and asked how did anyone benefit in that?
> 
> That isn't a strawman.
Click to expand...

Yes it is.  Sorry that you do not want to deal with that basic fact but the Iraq war - weather or not it benefited anything at all - is immaterial to the fact that the military benefits all.

Or I guess we could simply argue PP's merits based entirely on abortion and ignore the other services it offers.  That is exactly what you just did with the military.  Bring up a single engagement and ignore the entirety of the military's history to argue that it does not benefit all.


----------



## Coyote

FA_Q2 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, no proof, just spouting, listen Joeyboy, no offense but anything you post I consider a huge lie. It is your fault for all the lies you have spewed over the last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be an @ss?
> 
> Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?
> 
> Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.
> 
> People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.
> 
> The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.
> 
> The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.
> 
> No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.
> 
> You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  It is her choice and no one else?  Are you POSITIVE about that?
Click to expand...


Yes.



> Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.



I have addressed it already.



> I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already.  Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights *but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.*



I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.


----------



## Coyote

FA_Q2 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did anyone benefit from the War in Iraq other than  Haliburton?  That's actually kind of retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You telling me you don't benefit from the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  That isn't what he said.  Who benefited from the war in Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is interesting that you felt the need to point that out when his asinine question  was a straw man itself - she never stated that the Iraq war benefited everyone but that the MILITARY benefited everyone.  That is simply a fact that is painfully obvious.
> 
> Of course, that in itself is an asinine line of questioning anyway because it was assuming that the right is somehow the vaunted pro military action party when that has ceased to be the case.  In general, both parties are now active war mongers and this president has presided in an expansion of overseas military action all over the place.  Fewer troops on the ground (though we are going BACK to Iraq), a lot more missiles blowing shit up.
> 
> I don't really see the real advantage here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She said :
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> He brought up a specific conflict and asked how did anyone benefit in that?
> 
> That isn't a strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is.  Sorry that you do not want to deal with that basic fact but the Iraq war - weather or not it benefited anything at all - is immaterial to the fact that the military benefits all.
> 
> Or I guess we could simply argue PP's merits based entirely on abortion and ignore the other services it offers.  That is exactly what you just did with the military.  Bring up a single engagement and ignore the entirety of the military's history to argue that it does not benefit all.
Click to expand...


That still doesn't make it a strawman.  Yes - I agree, that in general the military does benefit us all.  Looking at specific conflicts however, it is less clear.

When she responded with: You telling me you don't benefit from the military? * No - he never said that,* he brought up a specific conflict where it is doubtful there was much if any benefit.  Which is what a strawman argument is


----------



## BlueGin

HenryBHough said:


> So somebody please share with us why you liberals are so cool with parting-out babies but get your little titties in a wringer when some Muslim beheads an adult.  Especially since, comparatively, the beheadings are miniscule in number.



When have they ever acted like they were bothered by Muslims be heading Christians? Must have missed that.


----------



## Lilah

Faun said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
Click to expand...


Why did PP reprimand the doctors?


----------



## FA_Q2

Coyote said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> You telling me you don't benefit from the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.  That isn't what he said.  Who benefited from the war in Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is interesting that you felt the need to point that out when his asinine question  was a straw man itself - she never stated that the Iraq war benefited everyone but that the MILITARY benefited everyone.  That is simply a fact that is painfully obvious.
> 
> Of course, that in itself is an asinine line of questioning anyway because it was assuming that the right is somehow the vaunted pro military action party when that has ceased to be the case.  In general, both parties are now active war mongers and this president has presided in an expansion of overseas military action all over the place.  Fewer troops on the ground (though we are going BACK to Iraq), a lot more missiles blowing shit up.
> 
> I don't really see the real advantage here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She said :
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> He brought up a specific conflict and asked how did anyone benefit in that?
> 
> That isn't a strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is.  Sorry that you do not want to deal with that basic fact but the Iraq war - weather or not it benefited anything at all - is immaterial to the fact that the military benefits all.
> 
> Or I guess we could simply argue PP's merits based entirely on abortion and ignore the other services it offers.  That is exactly what you just did with the military.  Bring up a single engagement and ignore the entirety of the military's history to argue that it does not benefit all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That still doesn't make it a strawman.  Yes - I agree, that in general the military does benefit us all.  Looking at specific conflicts however, it is less clear.
> 
> When she responded with: You telling me you don't benefit from the military? * No - he never said that,* he brought up a specific conflict where it is doubtful there was much if any benefit.  Which is what a strawman argument is
Click to expand...

She never stated everyone benefited from the Iraq war.

Se how they are identical in the manner in which they attack an argument never made.


----------



## BlueGin

Coyote said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> Apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did anyone benefit from the War in Iraq other than  Haliburton?  That's actually kind of retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You telling me you don't benefit from the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  That isn't what he said.  Who benefited from the war in Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is interesting that you felt the need to point that out when his asinine question  was a straw man itself - she never stated that the Iraq war benefited everyone but that the MILITARY benefited everyone.  That is simply a fact that is painfully obvious.
> 
> Of course, that in itself is an asinine line of questioning anyway because it was assuming that the right is somehow the vaunted pro military action party when that has ceased to be the case.  In general, both parties are now active war mongers and this president has presided in an expansion of overseas military action all over the place.  Fewer troops on the ground (though we are going BACK to Iraq), a lot more missiles blowing shit up.
> 
> I don't really see the real advantage here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She said :
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> He brought up a specific conflict and asked how did anyone benefit in that?
> 
> That isn't a strawman.
Click to expand...


You denying all citizens benefit from the military?


----------



## Coyote

BlueGin said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did anyone benefit from the War in Iraq other than  Haliburton?  That's actually kind of retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You telling me you don't benefit from the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawman.  That isn't what he said.  Who benefited from the war in Iraq?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is interesting that you felt the need to point that out when his asinine question  was a straw man itself - she never stated that the Iraq war benefited everyone but that the MILITARY benefited everyone.  That is simply a fact that is painfully obvious.
> 
> Of course, that in itself is an asinine line of questioning anyway because it was assuming that the right is somehow the vaunted pro military action party when that has ceased to be the case.  In general, both parties are now active war mongers and this president has presided in an expansion of overseas military action all over the place.  Fewer troops on the ground (though we are going BACK to Iraq), a lot more missiles blowing shit up.
> 
> I don't really see the real advantage here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She said :
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> He brought up a specific conflict and asked how did anyone benefit in that?
> 
> That isn't a strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You denying all citizens benefit from the military?
Click to expand...


Nice strawman from you too.


----------



## Coyote

FA_Q2 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.  That isn't what he said.  Who benefited from the war in Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that you felt the need to point that out when his asinine question  was a straw man itself - she never stated that the Iraq war benefited everyone but that the MILITARY benefited everyone.  That is simply a fact that is painfully obvious.
> 
> Of course, that in itself is an asinine line of questioning anyway because it was assuming that the right is somehow the vaunted pro military action party when that has ceased to be the case.  In general, both parties are now active war mongers and this president has presided in an expansion of overseas military action all over the place.  Fewer troops on the ground (though we are going BACK to Iraq), a lot more missiles blowing shit up.
> 
> I don't really see the real advantage here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She said :
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> He brought up a specific conflict and asked how did anyone benefit in that?
> 
> That isn't a strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is.  Sorry that you do not want to deal with that basic fact but the Iraq war - weather or not it benefited anything at all - is immaterial to the fact that the military benefits all.
> 
> Or I guess we could simply argue PP's merits based entirely on abortion and ignore the other services it offers.  That is exactly what you just did with the military.  Bring up a single engagement and ignore the entirety of the military's history to argue that it does not benefit all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That still doesn't make it a strawman.  Yes - I agree, that in general the military does benefit us all.  Looking at specific conflicts however, it is less clear.
> 
> When she responded with: You telling me you don't benefit from the military? * No - he never said that,* he brought up a specific conflict where it is doubtful there was much if any benefit.  Which is what a strawman argument is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She never stated everyone benefited from the Iraq war.
> 
> Se how they are identical in the manner in which they attack an argument never made.
Click to expand...


She said everyone benefited from the military - that all inclusive statement includes the Iraq War - right?


----------



## FA_Q2

Coyote said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one who got the stat wrong.
> 
> I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.
> 
> Try to educate yourself, stupid.
> 
> The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be an @ss?
> 
> Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?
> 
> Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.
> 
> People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.
> 
> The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.
> 
> The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.
> 
> No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.
> 
> You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  It is her choice and no one else?  Are you POSITIVE about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already.  Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights *but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
Click to expand...

Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.

Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.

THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?

That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.


----------



## FA_Q2

Coyote said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting that you felt the need to point that out when his asinine question  was a straw man itself - she never stated that the Iraq war benefited everyone but that the MILITARY benefited everyone.  That is simply a fact that is painfully obvious.
> 
> Of course, that in itself is an asinine line of questioning anyway because it was assuming that the right is somehow the vaunted pro military action party when that has ceased to be the case.  In general, both parties are now active war mongers and this president has presided in an expansion of overseas military action all over the place.  Fewer troops on the ground (though we are going BACK to Iraq), a lot more missiles blowing shit up.
> 
> I don't really see the real advantage here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She said :
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> He brought up a specific conflict and asked how did anyone benefit in that?
> 
> That isn't a strawman.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it is.  Sorry that you do not want to deal with that basic fact but the Iraq war - weather or not it benefited anything at all - is immaterial to the fact that the military benefits all.
> 
> Or I guess we could simply argue PP's merits based entirely on abortion and ignore the other services it offers.  That is exactly what you just did with the military.  Bring up a single engagement and ignore the entirety of the military's history to argue that it does not benefit all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That still doesn't make it a strawman.  Yes - I agree, that in general the military does benefit us all.  Looking at specific conflicts however, it is less clear.
> 
> When she responded with: You telling me you don't benefit from the military? * No - he never said that,* he brought up a specific conflict where it is doubtful there was much if any benefit.  Which is what a strawman argument is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She never stated everyone benefited from the Iraq war.
> 
> Se how they are identical in the manner in which they attack an argument never made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She said everyone benefited from the military - that all inclusive statement includes the Iraq War - right?
Click to expand...

No it does not.  The Iraq war does not equal the military.

Are you honestly making the assertion that for everyone to benefit from X EVERYTHING EVER DONE BY X must have been beneficial?

That argument is blatantly false.


Everyone benefits from the military. The military has done many things that are not beneficial at all.  Both statements may (and do) co-exist.


----------



## Faun

Lilah said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did PP reprimand the doctors?
Click to expand...

I don't know. As far as I'm aware, PP has not divulged any details.


----------



## Coyote

FA_Q2 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be an @ss?
> 
> Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?
> 
> Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.
> 
> People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.
> 
> The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.
> 
> The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.
> 
> No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.
> 
> You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  It is her choice and no one else?  Are you POSITIVE about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already.  Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights *but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
Click to expand...


Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.


----------



## Lilah

Faun said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did PP reprimand the doctors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. As far as I'm aware, PP has not divulged any details.
Click to expand...


Cecile Richards said it was because of their tone.  Really?


----------



## Coyote

FA_Q2 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> She said :
> Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.
> 
> He brought up a specific conflict and asked how did anyone benefit in that?
> 
> That isn't a strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  Sorry that you do not want to deal with that basic fact but the Iraq war - weather or not it benefited anything at all - is immaterial to the fact that the military benefits all.
> 
> Or I guess we could simply argue PP's merits based entirely on abortion and ignore the other services it offers.  That is exactly what you just did with the military.  Bring up a single engagement and ignore the entirety of the military's history to argue that it does not benefit all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That still doesn't make it a strawman.  Yes - I agree, that in general the military does benefit us all.  Looking at specific conflicts however, it is less clear.
> 
> When she responded with: You telling me you don't benefit from the military? * No - he never said that,* he brought up a specific conflict where it is doubtful there was much if any benefit.  Which is what a strawman argument is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She never stated everyone benefited from the Iraq war.
> 
> Se how they are identical in the manner in which they attack an argument never made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She said everyone benefited from the military - that all inclusive statement includes the Iraq War - right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it does not.  The Iraq war does not equal the military.
> 
> Are you honestly making the assertion that for everyone to benefit from X EVERYTHING EVER DONE BY X must have been beneficial?
> 
> That argument is blatantly false.
> 
> 
> Everyone benefits from the military. The military has done many things that are not beneficial at all.  Both statements may (and do) co-exist.
Click to expand...


The Iraq war is a subset of the military - you can't just exclude it.


----------



## FA_Q2

Faun said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did PP reprimand the doctors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. As far as I'm aware, PP has not divulged any details.
Click to expand...

Of course they have not, there is going to be an active investigation into their practices. 

Your interpertation of


Coyote said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be an @ss?
> 
> Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?
> 
> Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.
> 
> People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.
> 
> The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.
> 
> The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.
> 
> No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.
> 
> You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  It is her choice and no one else?  Are you POSITIVE about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already.  Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights *but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

There are sane people in this world 

I think this is very important because there is real ground here that almost everyone agrees on but is rarely covered as things not controversial do not get ratings (or more importantly votes).  Late term abortion limits should be universal and federal and the balancing act between the rights of both involved should be protected.  Abortions before that point MUST be the decision of the mother mostly because there is simply no grounds for the government to control people like that.  I think that the vast majority of people in the nation actually agree on this very basic idea of abortion.

The problem I have is that this debate is almost always mired in the extreme - pro choice supporters refuse to acknowledge that the unborn child actually has rights that need to be protected and that it naturally leads to some restrictions on abortion and pro life supporters refuse to acknowledge that a woman has domain over her body and must retain that domain in order to be a free individual.   

It is sticky because it is so passionate.  I never really realized how powerful it can be until an acquaintance of mine actually had an abortion performed.  I did not think I would think anything of it but i honestly cant look at her the same now.  I know she aborted her child not because she did not have the means to care for it - she is fairly well off, not because the father was a dead beat - he begged and pleaded for her to have the child even if it meant she left and gave all rights over to him, but solely out of convenience to herself.  I will never be able to look at her as a friend and it really surprised me how strongly I felt about it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## FA_Q2

Coyote said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.  Sorry that you do not want to deal with that basic fact but the Iraq war - weather or not it benefited anything at all - is immaterial to the fact that the military benefits all.
> 
> Or I guess we could simply argue PP's merits based entirely on abortion and ignore the other services it offers.  That is exactly what you just did with the military.  Bring up a single engagement and ignore the entirety of the military's history to argue that it does not benefit all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That still doesn't make it a strawman.  Yes - I agree, that in general the military does benefit us all.  Looking at specific conflicts however, it is less clear.
> 
> When she responded with: You telling me you don't benefit from the military? * No - he never said that,* he brought up a specific conflict where it is doubtful there was much if any benefit.  Which is what a strawman argument is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She never stated everyone benefited from the Iraq war.
> 
> Se how they are identical in the manner in which they attack an argument never made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She said everyone benefited from the military - that all inclusive statement includes the Iraq War - right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it does not.  The Iraq war does not equal the military.
> 
> Are you honestly making the assertion that for everyone to benefit from X EVERYTHING EVER DONE BY X must have been beneficial?
> 
> That argument is blatantly false.
> 
> 
> Everyone benefits from the military. The military has done many things that are not beneficial at all.  Both statements may (and do) co-exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Iraq war is a subset of the military - you can't just exclude it.
Click to expand...

So you are making the argument that 
A: something benefits all 
then 
B. everything that it ever took part in must have benefited all

Sorry but I never excluded any particular war from the military.  I just take issue with what I can see is a blatantly illogical conclusion.


----------



## Faun

Lilah said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did PP reprimand the doctors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. As far as I'm aware, PP has not divulged any details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cecile Richards said it was because of their tone.  Really?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that even means? Again, I can't say if PP doesn't reveal their reasons.


----------



## Faun

FA_Q2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did PP reprimand the doctors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. As far as I'm aware, PP has not divulged any details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they have not, there is going to be an active investigation into their practices.
> 
> Your interpertation of
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  It is her choice and no one else?  Are you POSITIVE about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already.  Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights *but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> There are sane people in this world
> 
> I think this is very important because there is real ground here that almost everyone agrees on but is rarely covered as things not controversial do not get ratings (or more importantly votes).  Late term abortion limits should be universal and federal and the balancing act between the rights of both involved should be protected.  Abortions before that point MUST be the decision of the mother mostly because there is simply no grounds for the government to control people like that.  I think that the vast majority of people in the nation actually agree on this very basic idea of abortion.
> 
> The problem I have is that this debate is almost always mired in the extreme - pro choice supporters refuse to acknowledge that the unborn child actually has rights that need to be protected and that it naturally leads to some restrictions on abortion and pro life supporters refuse to acknowledge that a woman has domain over her body and must retain that domain in order to be a free individual.
> 
> It is sticky because it is so passionate.  I never really realized how powerful it can be until an acquaintance of mine actually had an abortion performed.  I did not think I would think anything of it but i honestly cant look at her the same now.  I know she aborted her child not because she did not have the means to care for it - she is fairly well off, not because the father was a dead beat - he begged and pleaded for her to have the child even if it meant she left and gave all rights over to him, but solely out of convenience to herself.  I will never be able to look at her as a friend and it really surprised me how strongly I felt about it.
Click to expand...

And there should be an investigation. Personally, I have no problem with that at all. If an investigation proves fruitful, start handing out indictments.


----------



## FA_Q2

Faun said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> 
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did PP reprimand the doctors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. As far as I'm aware, PP has not divulged any details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they have not, there is going to be an active investigation into their practices.
> 
> Your interpertation of
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  It is her choice and no one else?  Are you POSITIVE about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already.  Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights *but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> There are sane people in this world
> 
> I think this is very important because there is real ground here that almost everyone agrees on but is rarely covered as things not controversial do not get ratings (or more importantly votes).  Late term abortion limits should be universal and federal and the balancing act between the rights of both involved should be protected.  Abortions before that point MUST be the decision of the mother mostly because there is simply no grounds for the government to control people like that.  I think that the vast majority of people in the nation actually agree on this very basic idea of abortion.
> 
> The problem I have is that this debate is almost always mired in the extreme - pro choice supporters refuse to acknowledge that the unborn child actually has rights that need to be protected and that it naturally leads to some restrictions on abortion and pro life supporters refuse to acknowledge that a woman has domain over her body and must retain that domain in order to be a free individual.
> 
> It is sticky because it is so passionate.  I never really realized how powerful it can be until an acquaintance of mine actually had an abortion performed.  I did not think I would think anything of it but i honestly cant look at her the same now.  I know she aborted her child not because she did not have the means to care for it - she is fairly well off, not because the father was a dead beat - he begged and pleaded for her to have the child even if it meant she left and gave all rights over to him, but solely out of convenience to herself.  I will never be able to look at her as a friend and it really surprised me how strongly I felt about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there should be an investigation. Personally, I have no problem with that at all. If an investigation proves fruitful, start handing out indictments.
Click to expand...

Did you mean to quote this?

It has nothing to do with an investigation.  Your comment makes no sense in regard to mine.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey Boy, you simply don't deserve an answer. You have yet to acknowledge any of your lies.
> 
> So,sad for Joey Boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you aren't capable of giving an answer.
> 
> Because you really know, somewhere, that women only get late abortions when the pregnancy has gone wrong.
> 
> But since a late fetus almost kind of looks like a baby, you get all worked up about it, because no one gives a darn about the 98.8% of abortions performed on first trimester fetuses that are the size of a kidney bean.
Click to expand...

Because it looks like a baby ? Maybe because it is a baby? Late term. Meaning third trimester is most of the time viable. By your own definition that should be a baby. But I guess your idea is that it's a fetus until it passes through the vagina, then it magically turns to a baby. I'm sorry but you lost the right to call it fetal tissue since pp is passing out actual functioning organs


----------



## Vigilante

Love the little LION comparisons.....


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.


----------



## WinterBorn

Vigilante said:


> Love the little LION comparisons.....



"skinned alive"???   WTF?   Please show a link to any fetus or baby that was skinned alive?

Or is this just more sensationalistic bullshit?


----------



## WinterBorn

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.



I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?


----------



## Vigilante

WinterBorn said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love the little LION comparisons.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "skinned alive"???   WTF?   Please show a link to any fetus or baby that was skinned alive?
> 
> Or is this just more sensationalistic bullshit?
Click to expand...


But, it's all called FECAL TISSUE, while even the Dr. Mengele's of Planned Parenthood call it....brains, heart. kidneys' and these ....


----------



## Vigilante

WinterBorn said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
Click to expand...


Perhaps this will help you...then again!

Sale of baby body parts


----------



## WinterBorn

Vigilante said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
Click to expand...


Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.


----------



## WinterBorn

Vigilante said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love the little LION comparisons.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "skinned alive"???   WTF?   Please show a link to any fetus or baby that was skinned alive?
> 
> Or is this just more sensationalistic bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, it's all called FECAL TISSUE, while even the Dr. Mengele's of Planned Parenthood call it....brains, heart. kidneys' and these ....
Click to expand...



So the answer would be no, you don't have a link to any fetus or baby being skinned alive?


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
Click to expand...

Lucrative meaning they're a 1.3billi


WinterBorn said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
Click to expand...

lucrative meaning they're bringing in 1.3billion as a charity, 500 million of that coming from the fed for providing services that many other clinics...almost every other clinic provides.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

WinterBorn said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
Click to expand...

Under federal law, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 289g-2, it is legal to give or transfer fetal tissue, but not for “valuable consideration.” “Valuable consideration” is a defined term:

The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.

Videos (when not censored by stooge judges) show PP executives freely haggling and discussing prices and terms with middle man tissue collection
agents (so they believe). All you have to do is watch.


----------



## Vigilante

WinterBorn said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
Click to expand...

Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?


----------



## Vigilante

WinterBorn said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Love the little LION comparisons.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "skinned alive"???   WTF?   Please show a link to any fetus or baby that was skinned alive?
> 
> Or is this just more sensationalistic bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But, it's all called FECAL TISSUE, while even the Dr. Mengele's of Planned Parenthood call it....brains, heart. kidneys' and these ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So the answer would be no, you don't have a link to any fetus or baby being skinned alive?
Click to expand...


If we did, I would think you'd have another Dr. Gosnell on your hands.... even when we get former employees to testify, they are ridiculed, and lied about.... but you are too dishonest to  acknowledge that fact!


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lucrative meaning they're a 1.3billi
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lucrative meaning they're bringing in 1.3billion as a charity, 500 million of that coming from the fed for providing services that many other clinics...almost every other clinic provides.
Click to expand...


They provide services to women.  Most of the patients do not have an abortion.  To the tune of 90% of PP's patients do not have abortions.

Lucrative?  Certainly not by charging to recoup the costs of donated tissues.


----------



## Vigilante

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lucrative meaning they're a 1.3billi
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lucrative meaning they're bringing in 1.3billion as a charity, 500 million of that coming from the fed for providing services that many other clinics...almost every other clinic provides.
Click to expand...


Now don't forget the DONATIONS made back to the DNC and other NeoCommie candidates!


----------



## Vigilante

WinterBorn said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lucrative meaning they're a 1.3billi
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lucrative meaning they're bringing in 1.3billion as a charity, 500 million of that coming from the fed for providing services that many other clinics...almost every other clinic provides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They provide services to women.  Most of the patients do not have an abortion.  To the tune of 90% of PP's patients do not have abortions.
> 
> Lucrative?  Certainly not by charging to recoup the costs of donated tissues.
Click to expand...


What do they do? I understand PP only has 2 MRI machines between ALL the PP centers.... They need to give out condoms.... ObumaCare does that and birth control!


----------



## WinterBorn

Vigilante said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
Click to expand...


None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.

Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:

"We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:

Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.

Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”

Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
*
from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video


----------



## Vigilante

WinterBorn said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
Click to expand...


ALL now covered by ObumaCare and done by LOCAL doctors and medical centers..... we do not NEED PP taking federal money.... If they can't make it, they DIE as have the thoudands of doctors that have stopped practicing because of Obumacare


*More Doctors Are Quitting Medicare. Is Obamacare Really To ...*
www.californiahealthline.org/road-to-reform/2013/more-*doctors*-are...
A recent Wall Street Journal cover story noted that the number *of physicians* opting out ... More *Doctors* Are *Quitting* Medicare. Is *Obamacare* ... *Obamacare* has been a ...

*83% of doctors consider quitting because of ObamaCare ...*
humanevents.com/2012/07/12/83-*of-doctors*-consider-*quitting*-because...
83% *of doctors* consider *quitting* ... the survey form was primarily completed by *doctors* who dislike *ObamaCare*. ... In addition to *doctors quitting* their ...

*Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare*
Snohomish Times Newspaper Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare
Nearly one-third *of physicians* in the U.S. could leave the medical profession after Obama s healthcare reform plan becomes law, according to a survey published in The ...

*Doctors Quitting Early Due to Burdensome Obamacare ...*
*LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2013/03/28/*doctors-quitting*...*obamacare*-regulations
Mar 28, 2013 · *Doctors Quitting* Early Due to Burdensome *Obamacare* Regulations. Advertisement. SEARCH. Categories ... among other worries, under *Obamacare*, ...

*ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business*
ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business
*ObamaCare* Would Drive *Doctors Out of Business*. ... who would consider *quitting* if *ObamaCare* ... and hundreds of *thousands* would think about shutting down ...

*8 of Every 10 Doctors Thinking of Quitting Because of ...*
godfatherpolitics.com/6095/8-of-every-10-*doctors*-thinking-of...
8 of Every 10 *Doctors* Thinking of *Quitting* Because of *Obamacare* The *Doctor* Patient Medical ... These groups represent hundreds of *thousands of physicians* across a ...

*Survey: 83% of Doctors Considered Quitting Over Obamacare*
*Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe U.S. news politics world health finance video science technology live news stream*/Newsfront/*obamacare*-*doctors*-threaten-*quitting*/2012/...
Survey: 83% *of Doctors* Considered *Quitting* Over *Obamacare*. By Todd Beamon | Monday, 09 Jul 2012 07:44 PM Short URL| Email Article| Comment| ...


----------



## WinterBorn

Vigilante said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL now covered by ObumaCare and done by LOCAL doctors and medical centers..... we do not NEED PP taking federal money.... If they can't make it, they DIE as have the thoudands of doctors that have stopped practicing because of Obumacare
> 
> 
> *More Doctors Are Quitting Medicare. Is Obamacare Really To ...*
> www.californiahealthline.org/road-to-reform/2013/more-*doctors*-are...
> A recent Wall Street Journal cover story noted that the number *of physicians* opting out ... More *Doctors* Are *Quitting* Medicare. Is *Obamacare* ... *Obamacare* has been a ...
> 
> *83% of doctors consider quitting because of ObamaCare ...*
> humanevents.com/2012/07/12/83-*of-doctors*-consider-*quitting*-because...
> 83% *of doctors* consider *quitting* ... the survey form was primarily completed by *doctors* who dislike *ObamaCare*. ... In addition to *doctors quitting* their ...
> 
> *Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare*
> Snohomish Times Newspaper Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare
> Nearly one-third *of physicians* in the U.S. could leave the medical profession after Obama s healthcare reform plan becomes law, according to a survey published in The ...
> 
> *Doctors Quitting Early Due to Burdensome Obamacare ...*
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2013/03/28/*doctors-quitting*...*obamacare*-regulations
> Mar 28, 2013 · *Doctors Quitting* Early Due to Burdensome *Obamacare* Regulations. Advertisement. SEARCH. Categories ... among other worries, under *Obamacare*, ...
> 
> *ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business*
> ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business
> *ObamaCare* Would Drive *Doctors Out of Business*. ... who would consider *quitting* if *ObamaCare* ... and hundreds of *thousands* would think about shutting down ...
> 
> *8 of Every 10 Doctors Thinking of Quitting Because of ...*
> godfatherpolitics.com/6095/8-of-every-10-*doctors*-thinking-of...
> 8 of Every 10 *Doctors* Thinking of *Quitting* Because of *Obamacare* The *Doctor* Patient Medical ... These groups represent hundreds of *thousands of physicians* across a ...
> 
> *Survey: 83% of Doctors Considered Quitting Over Obamacare*
> *Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe U.S. news politics world health finance video science technology live news stream*/Newsfront/*obamacare*-*doctors*-threaten-*quitting*/2012/...
> Survey: 83% *of Doctors* Considered *Quitting* Over *Obamacare*. By Todd Beamon | Monday, 09 Jul 2012 07:44 PM Short URL| Email Article| Comment| ...
Click to expand...


"However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money."

Most of the money is from Medicaid.  And none of that goes to abortion.

But this is all a sideshow if you cannot show that PP "sold" tissues to make a profit, as you have claimed.


----------



## Faun

FA_Q2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did PP reprimand the doctors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. As far as I'm aware, PP has not divulged any details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they have not, there is going to be an active investigation into their practices.
> 
> Your interpertation of
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> There are sane people in this world
> 
> I think this is very important because there is real ground here that almost everyone agrees on but is rarely covered as things not controversial do not get ratings (or more importantly votes).  Late term abortion limits should be universal and federal and the balancing act between the rights of both involved should be protected.  Abortions before that point MUST be the decision of the mother mostly because there is simply no grounds for the government to control people like that.  I think that the vast majority of people in the nation actually agree on this very basic idea of abortion.
> 
> The problem I have is that this debate is almost always mired in the extreme - pro choice supporters refuse to acknowledge that the unborn child actually has rights that need to be protected and that it naturally leads to some restrictions on abortion and pro life supporters refuse to acknowledge that a woman has domain over her body and must retain that domain in order to be a free individual.
> 
> It is sticky because it is so passionate.  I never really realized how powerful it can be until an acquaintance of mine actually had an abortion performed.  I did not think I would think anything of it but i honestly cant look at her the same now.  I know she aborted her child not because she did not have the means to care for it - she is fairly well off, not because the father was a dead beat - he begged and pleaded for her to have the child even if it meant she left and gave all rights over to him, but solely out of convenience to herself.  I will never be able to look at her as a friend and it really surprised me how strongly I felt about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And there should be an investigation. Personally, I have no problem with that at all. If an investigation proves fruitful, start handing out indictments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you mean to quote this?
> 
> It has nothing to do with an investigation.  Your comment makes no sense in regard to mine.
Click to expand...

I replied to your reply to my post where you said...

_"Of course they have not, there is going to be an active investigation into their practices."_​


----------



## Vigilante

WinterBorn said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL now covered by ObumaCare and done by LOCAL doctors and medical centers..... we do not NEED PP taking federal money.... If they can't make it, they DIE as have the thoudands of doctors that have stopped practicing because of Obumacare
> 
> 
> *More Doctors Are Quitting Medicare. Is Obamacare Really To ...*
> www.californiahealthline.org/road-to-reform/2013/more-*doctors*-are...
> A recent Wall Street Journal cover story noted that the number *of physicians* opting out ... More *Doctors* Are *Quitting* Medicare. Is *Obamacare* ... *Obamacare* has been a ...
> 
> *83% of doctors consider quitting because of ObamaCare ...*
> humanevents.com/2012/07/12/83-*of-doctors*-consider-*quitting*-because...
> 83% *of doctors* consider *quitting* ... the survey form was primarily completed by *doctors* who dislike *ObamaCare*. ... In addition to *doctors quitting* their ...
> 
> *Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare*
> Snohomish Times Newspaper Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare
> Nearly one-third *of physicians* in the U.S. could leave the medical profession after Obama s healthcare reform plan becomes law, according to a survey published in The ...
> 
> *Doctors Quitting Early Due to Burdensome Obamacare ...*
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2013/03/28/*doctors-quitting*...*obamacare*-regulations
> Mar 28, 2013 · *Doctors Quitting* Early Due to Burdensome *Obamacare* Regulations. Advertisement. SEARCH. Categories ... among other worries, under *Obamacare*, ...
> 
> *ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business*
> ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business
> *ObamaCare* Would Drive *Doctors Out of Business*. ... who would consider *quitting* if *ObamaCare* ... and hundreds of *thousands* would think about shutting down ...
> 
> *8 of Every 10 Doctors Thinking of Quitting Because of ...*
> godfatherpolitics.com/6095/8-of-every-10-*doctors*-thinking-of...
> 8 of Every 10 *Doctors* Thinking of *Quitting* Because of *Obamacare* The *Doctor* Patient Medical ... These groups represent hundreds of *thousands of physicians* across a ...
> 
> *Survey: 83% of Doctors Considered Quitting Over Obamacare*
> *Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe U.S. news politics world health finance video science technology live news stream*/Newsfront/*obamacare*-*doctors*-threaten-*quitting*/2012/...
> Survey: 83% *of Doctors* Considered *Quitting* Over *Obamacare*. By Todd Beamon | Monday, 09 Jul 2012 07:44 PM Short URL| Email Article| Comment| ...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money."
> 
> Most of the money is from Medicaid.  And none of that goes to abortion.
> 
> But this is all a sideshow if you cannot show that PP "sold" tissues to make a profit, as you have claimed.
Click to expand...


You can deny the video's all you want, your credibility just goes further into the shit box! LOLOLOL!


----------



## Faun

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Under federal law, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 289g-2, it is legal to give or transfer fetal tissue, but not for “valuable consideration.” “Valuable consideration” is a defined term:
> 
> The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.
> 
> Videos (when not censored by stooge judges) show PP executives freely haggling and discussing prices and terms with middle man tissue collection
> agents (so they believe). All you have to do is watch.
Click to expand...

$100 is "valuable consideration" to you?


----------



## WinterBorn

Vigilante said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> 
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL now covered by ObumaCare and done by LOCAL doctors and medical centers..... we do not NEED PP taking federal money.... If they can't make it, they DIE as have the thoudands of doctors that have stopped practicing because of Obumacare
> 
> 
> *More Doctors Are Quitting Medicare. Is Obamacare Really To ...*
> www.californiahealthline.org/road-to-reform/2013/more-*doctors*-are...
> A recent Wall Street Journal cover story noted that the number *of physicians* opting out ... More *Doctors* Are *Quitting* Medicare. Is *Obamacare* ... *Obamacare* has been a ...
> 
> *83% of doctors consider quitting because of ObamaCare ...*
> humanevents.com/2012/07/12/83-*of-doctors*-consider-*quitting*-because...
> 83% *of doctors* consider *quitting* ... the survey form was primarily completed by *doctors* who dislike *ObamaCare*. ... In addition to *doctors quitting* their ...
> 
> *Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare*
> Snohomish Times Newspaper Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare
> Nearly one-third *of physicians* in the U.S. could leave the medical profession after Obama s healthcare reform plan becomes law, according to a survey published in The ...
> 
> *Doctors Quitting Early Due to Burdensome Obamacare ...*
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2013/03/28/*doctors-quitting*...*obamacare*-regulations
> Mar 28, 2013 · *Doctors Quitting* Early Due to Burdensome *Obamacare* Regulations. Advertisement. SEARCH. Categories ... among other worries, under *Obamacare*, ...
> 
> *ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business*
> ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business
> *ObamaCare* Would Drive *Doctors Out of Business*. ... who would consider *quitting* if *ObamaCare* ... and hundreds of *thousands* would think about shutting down ...
> 
> *8 of Every 10 Doctors Thinking of Quitting Because of ...*
> godfatherpolitics.com/6095/8-of-every-10-*doctors*-thinking-of...
> 8 of Every 10 *Doctors* Thinking of *Quitting* Because of *Obamacare* The *Doctor* Patient Medical ... These groups represent hundreds of *thousands of physicians* across a ...
> 
> *Survey: 83% of Doctors Considered Quitting Over Obamacare*
> *Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe U.S. news politics world health finance video science technology live news stream*/Newsfront/*obamacare*-*doctors*-threaten-*quitting*/2012/...
> Survey: 83% *of Doctors* Considered *Quitting* Over *Obamacare*. By Todd Beamon | Monday, 09 Jul 2012 07:44 PM Short URL| Email Article| Comment| ...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money."
> 
> Most of the money is from Medicaid.  And none of that goes to abortion.
> 
> But this is all a sideshow if you cannot show that PP "sold" tissues to make a profit, as you have claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deny the video's all you want, your credibility just goes further into the shit box! LOLOLOL!
Click to expand...


I'd say my credibility is fine.  And most of the people arguing with me either resort to personal attacks or try and derail the thread.  Which tells me all I need to know.

I saw nothing in the video that showed PP doing anything illegal.


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL now covered by ObumaCare and done by LOCAL doctors and medical centers..... we do not NEED PP taking federal money.... If they can't make it, they DIE as have the thoudands of doctors that have stopped practicing because of Obumacare
> 
> 
> *More Doctors Are Quitting Medicare. Is Obamacare Really To ...*
> www.californiahealthline.org/road-to-reform/2013/more-*doctors*-are...
> A recent Wall Street Journal cover story noted that the number *of physicians* opting out ... More *Doctors* Are *Quitting* Medicare. Is *Obamacare* ... *Obamacare* has been a ...
> 
> *83% of doctors consider quitting because of ObamaCare ...*
> humanevents.com/2012/07/12/83-*of-doctors*-consider-*quitting*-because...
> 83% *of doctors* consider *quitting* ... the survey form was primarily completed by *doctors* who dislike *ObamaCare*. ... In addition to *doctors quitting* their ...
> 
> *Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare*
> Snohomish Times Newspaper Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare
> Nearly one-third *of physicians* in the U.S. could leave the medical profession after Obama s healthcare reform plan becomes law, according to a survey published in The ...
> 
> *Doctors Quitting Early Due to Burdensome Obamacare ...*
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2013/03/28/*doctors-quitting*...*obamacare*-regulations
> Mar 28, 2013 · *Doctors Quitting* Early Due to Burdensome *Obamacare* Regulations. Advertisement. SEARCH. Categories ... among other worries, under *Obamacare*, ...
> 
> *ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business*
> ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business
> *ObamaCare* Would Drive *Doctors Out of Business*. ... who would consider *quitting* if *ObamaCare* ... and hundreds of *thousands* would think about shutting down ...
> 
> *8 of Every 10 Doctors Thinking of Quitting Because of ...*
> godfatherpolitics.com/6095/8-of-every-10-*doctors*-thinking-of...
> 8 of Every 10 *Doctors* Thinking of *Quitting* Because of *Obamacare* The *Doctor* Patient Medical ... These groups represent hundreds of *thousands of physicians* across a ...
> 
> *Survey: 83% of Doctors Considered Quitting Over Obamacare*
> *Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe U.S. news politics world health finance video science technology live news stream*/Newsfront/*obamacare*-*doctors*-threaten-*quitting*/2012/...
> Survey: 83% *of Doctors* Considered *Quitting* Over *Obamacare*. By Todd Beamon | Monday, 09 Jul 2012 07:44 PM Short URL| Email Article| Comment| ...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money."
> 
> Most of the money is from Medicaid.  And none of that goes to abortion.
> 
> But this is all a sideshow if you cannot show that PP "sold" tissues to make a profit, as you have claimed.
Click to expand...

Not tissue, organs. There is a difference. And no I don't consider 100 to be a lot at all, but the negotiation aspect of it does sound fishy. But at least I will say as of now it doesn't appear to be for considerable profit. But the guy from cmp did say they get worse, has it on video, and in one case I heard about the one clinic or region of clinics was pulling in about 100 thousand. Either way to me it's not the point. The whole fact that they're trying to get a gag order on this, and the furor to prop distractions up like Cecil the fucking lion tells me that they really want this to go away for good reason


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> 
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL now covered by ObumaCare and done by LOCAL doctors and medical centers..... we do not NEED PP taking federal money.... If they can't make it, they DIE as have the thoudands of doctors that have stopped practicing because of Obumacare
> 
> 
> *More Doctors Are Quitting Medicare. Is Obamacare Really To ...*
> www.californiahealthline.org/road-to-reform/2013/more-*doctors*-are...
> A recent Wall Street Journal cover story noted that the number *of physicians* opting out ... More *Doctors* Are *Quitting* Medicare. Is *Obamacare* ... *Obamacare* has been a ...
> 
> *83% of doctors consider quitting because of ObamaCare ...*
> humanevents.com/2012/07/12/83-*of-doctors*-consider-*quitting*-because...
> 83% *of doctors* consider *quitting* ... the survey form was primarily completed by *doctors* who dislike *ObamaCare*. ... In addition to *doctors quitting* their ...
> 
> *Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare*
> Snohomish Times Newspaper Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare
> Nearly one-third *of physicians* in the U.S. could leave the medical profession after Obama s healthcare reform plan becomes law, according to a survey published in The ...
> 
> *Doctors Quitting Early Due to Burdensome Obamacare ...*
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2013/03/28/*doctors-quitting*...*obamacare*-regulations
> Mar 28, 2013 · *Doctors Quitting* Early Due to Burdensome *Obamacare* Regulations. Advertisement. SEARCH. Categories ... among other worries, under *Obamacare*, ...
> 
> *ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business*
> ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business
> *ObamaCare* Would Drive *Doctors Out of Business*. ... who would consider *quitting* if *ObamaCare* ... and hundreds of *thousands* would think about shutting down ...
> 
> *8 of Every 10 Doctors Thinking of Quitting Because of ...*
> godfatherpolitics.com/6095/8-of-every-10-*doctors*-thinking-of...
> 8 of Every 10 *Doctors* Thinking of *Quitting* Because of *Obamacare* The *Doctor* Patient Medical ... These groups represent hundreds of *thousands of physicians* across a ...
> 
> *Survey: 83% of Doctors Considered Quitting Over Obamacare*
> *Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe U.S. news politics world health finance video science technology live news stream*/Newsfront/*obamacare*-*doctors*-threaten-*quitting*/2012/...
> Survey: 83% *of Doctors* Considered *Quitting* Over *Obamacare*. By Todd Beamon | Monday, 09 Jul 2012 07:44 PM Short URL| Email Article| Comment| ...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money."
> 
> Most of the money is from Medicaid.  And none of that goes to abortion.
> 
> But this is all a sideshow if you cannot show that PP "sold" tissues to make a profit, as you have claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not tissue, organs. There is a difference. And no I don't consider 100 to be a lot at all, but the negotiation aspect of it does sound fishy. But at least I will say as of now it doesn't appear to be for considerable profit. But the guy from cmp did say they get worse, has it on video, and in one case I heard about the one clinic or region of clinics was pulling in about 100 thousand. Either way to me it's not the point. The whole fact that they're trying to get a gag order on this, and the furor to prop distractions up like Cecil the fucking lion tells me that they really want this to go away for good reason
Click to expand...


Whether there is profit depends on the costs involved.  I doubt it involves taking tissues (or organs), plopping in a tupperware container and shoving them in a refrigerator until Igor comes by to pick them up.


----------



## Vigilante

WinterBorn said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL now covered by ObumaCare and done by LOCAL doctors and medical centers..... we do not NEED PP taking federal money.... If they can't make it, they DIE as have the thoudands of doctors that have stopped practicing because of Obumacare
> 
> 
> *More Doctors Are Quitting Medicare. Is Obamacare Really To ...*
> www.californiahealthline.org/road-to-reform/2013/more-*doctors*-are...
> A recent Wall Street Journal cover story noted that the number *of physicians* opting out ... More *Doctors* Are *Quitting* Medicare. Is *Obamacare* ... *Obamacare* has been a ...
> 
> *83% of doctors consider quitting because of ObamaCare ...*
> humanevents.com/2012/07/12/83-*of-doctors*-consider-*quitting*-because...
> 83% *of doctors* consider *quitting* ... the survey form was primarily completed by *doctors* who dislike *ObamaCare*. ... In addition to *doctors quitting* their ...
> 
> *Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare*
> Snohomish Times Newspaper Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare
> Nearly one-third *of physicians* in the U.S. could leave the medical profession after Obama s healthcare reform plan becomes law, according to a survey published in The ...
> 
> *Doctors Quitting Early Due to Burdensome Obamacare ...*
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2013/03/28/*doctors-quitting*...*obamacare*-regulations
> Mar 28, 2013 · *Doctors Quitting* Early Due to Burdensome *Obamacare* Regulations. Advertisement. SEARCH. Categories ... among other worries, under *Obamacare*, ...
> 
> *ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business*
> ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business
> *ObamaCare* Would Drive *Doctors Out of Business*. ... who would consider *quitting* if *ObamaCare* ... and hundreds of *thousands* would think about shutting down ...
> 
> *8 of Every 10 Doctors Thinking of Quitting Because of ...*
> godfatherpolitics.com/6095/8-of-every-10-*doctors*-thinking-of...
> 8 of Every 10 *Doctors* Thinking of *Quitting* Because of *Obamacare* The *Doctor* Patient Medical ... These groups represent hundreds of *thousands of physicians* across a ...
> 
> *Survey: 83% of Doctors Considered Quitting Over Obamacare*
> *Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe U.S. news politics world health finance video science technology live news stream*/Newsfront/*obamacare*-*doctors*-threaten-*quitting*/2012/...
> Survey: 83% *of Doctors* Considered *Quitting* Over *Obamacare*. By Todd Beamon | Monday, 09 Jul 2012 07:44 PM Short URL| Email Article| Comment| ...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money."
> 
> Most of the money is from Medicaid.  And none of that goes to abortion.
> 
> But this is all a sideshow if you cannot show that PP "sold" tissues to make a profit, as you have claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deny the video's all you want, your credibility just goes further into the shit box! LOLOLOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say my credibility is fine.  And most of the people arguing with me either resort to personal attacks or try and derail the thread.  Which tells me all I need to know.
> 
> I saw nothing in the video that showed PP doing anything illegal.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you need a BRAILLE computer, as you seem to be either blind, or deliberately stupid!


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL now covered by ObumaCare and done by LOCAL doctors and medical centers..... we do not NEED PP taking federal money.... If they can't make it, they DIE as have the thoudands of doctors that have stopped practicing because of Obumacare
> 
> 
> *More Doctors Are Quitting Medicare. Is Obamacare Really To ...*
> www.californiahealthline.org/road-to-reform/2013/more-*doctors*-are...
> A recent Wall Street Journal cover story noted that the number *of physicians* opting out ... More *Doctors* Are *Quitting* Medicare. Is *Obamacare* ... *Obamacare* has been a ...
> 
> *83% of doctors consider quitting because of ObamaCare ...*
> humanevents.com/2012/07/12/83-*of-doctors*-consider-*quitting*-because...
> 83% *of doctors* consider *quitting* ... the survey form was primarily completed by *doctors* who dislike *ObamaCare*. ... In addition to *doctors quitting* their ...
> 
> *Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare*
> Snohomish Times Newspaper Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare
> Nearly one-third *of physicians* in the U.S. could leave the medical profession after Obama s healthcare reform plan becomes law, according to a survey published in The ...
> 
> *Doctors Quitting Early Due to Burdensome Obamacare ...*
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2013/03/28/*doctors-quitting*...*obamacare*-regulations
> Mar 28, 2013 · *Doctors Quitting* Early Due to Burdensome *Obamacare* Regulations. Advertisement. SEARCH. Categories ... among other worries, under *Obamacare*, ...
> 
> *ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business*
> ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business
> *ObamaCare* Would Drive *Doctors Out of Business*. ... who would consider *quitting* if *ObamaCare* ... and hundreds of *thousands* would think about shutting down ...
> 
> *8 of Every 10 Doctors Thinking of Quitting Because of ...*
> godfatherpolitics.com/6095/8-of-every-10-*doctors*-thinking-of...
> 8 of Every 10 *Doctors* Thinking of *Quitting* Because of *Obamacare* The *Doctor* Patient Medical ... These groups represent hundreds of *thousands of physicians* across a ...
> 
> *Survey: 83% of Doctors Considered Quitting Over Obamacare*
> *Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe U.S. news politics world health finance video science technology live news stream*/Newsfront/*obamacare*-*doctors*-threaten-*quitting*/2012/...
> Survey: 83% *of Doctors* Considered *Quitting* Over *Obamacare*. By Todd Beamon | Monday, 09 Jul 2012 07:44 PM Short URL| Email Article| Comment| ...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money."
> 
> Most of the money is from Medicaid.  And none of that goes to abortion.
> 
> But this is all a sideshow if you cannot show that PP "sold" tissues to make a profit, as you have claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not tissue, organs. There is a difference. And no I don't consider 100 to be a lot at all, but the negotiation aspect of it does sound fishy. But at least I will say as of now it doesn't appear to be for considerable profit. But the guy from cmp did say they get worse, has it on video, and in one case I heard about the one clinic or region of clinics was pulling in about 100 thousand. Either way to me it's not the point. The whole fact that they're trying to get a gag order on this, and the furor to prop distractions up like Cecil the fucking lion tells me that they really want this to go away for good reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether there is profit depends on the costs involved.  I doubt it involves taking tissues (or organs), plopping in a tupperware container and shoving them in a refrigerator until Igor comes by to pick them up.
Click to expand...

I have seen 4 organ harvest so far, ice and a cooler. That's about all it takes. Well a waiting helicopter to get them wherever quick . But yea, if they know they have a specimen arriving, no reason that they shouldn't be able to arrange quick enough transport. Which is why I suspect after the first video pp said they do it for 30 to 50. There could be other factors, but why not have a set number  for the cost, any other company or charity could figure this simple cost to figure out. But no you have to dilute with "fog of war" bs when spinning a story


----------



## WinterBorn

Vigilante said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL now covered by ObumaCare and done by LOCAL doctors and medical centers..... we do not NEED PP taking federal money.... If they can't make it, they DIE as have the thoudands of doctors that have stopped practicing because of Obumacare
> 
> 
> *More Doctors Are Quitting Medicare. Is Obamacare Really To ...*
> www.californiahealthline.org/road-to-reform/2013/more-*doctors*-are...
> A recent Wall Street Journal cover story noted that the number *of physicians* opting out ... More *Doctors* Are *Quitting* Medicare. Is *Obamacare* ... *Obamacare* has been a ...
> 
> *83% of doctors consider quitting because of ObamaCare ...*
> humanevents.com/2012/07/12/83-*of-doctors*-consider-*quitting*-because...
> 83% *of doctors* consider *quitting* ... the survey form was primarily completed by *doctors* who dislike *ObamaCare*. ... In addition to *doctors quitting* their ...
> 
> *Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare*
> Snohomish Times Newspaper Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare
> Nearly one-third *of physicians* in the U.S. could leave the medical profession after Obama s healthcare reform plan becomes law, according to a survey published in The ...
> 
> *Doctors Quitting Early Due to Burdensome Obamacare ...*
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2013/03/28/*doctors-quitting*...*obamacare*-regulations
> Mar 28, 2013 · *Doctors Quitting* Early Due to Burdensome *Obamacare* Regulations. Advertisement. SEARCH. Categories ... among other worries, under *Obamacare*, ...
> 
> *ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business*
> ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business
> *ObamaCare* Would Drive *Doctors Out of Business*. ... who would consider *quitting* if *ObamaCare* ... and hundreds of *thousands* would think about shutting down ...
> 
> *8 of Every 10 Doctors Thinking of Quitting Because of ...*
> godfatherpolitics.com/6095/8-of-every-10-*doctors*-thinking-of...
> 8 of Every 10 *Doctors* Thinking of *Quitting* Because of *Obamacare* The *Doctor* Patient Medical ... These groups represent hundreds of *thousands of physicians* across a ...
> 
> *Survey: 83% of Doctors Considered Quitting Over Obamacare*
> *Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe U.S. news politics world health finance video science technology live news stream*/Newsfront/*obamacare*-*doctors*-threaten-*quitting*/2012/...
> Survey: 83% *of Doctors* Considered *Quitting* Over *Obamacare*. By Todd Beamon | Monday, 09 Jul 2012 07:44 PM Short URL| Email Article| Comment| ...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money."
> 
> Most of the money is from Medicaid.  And none of that goes to abortion.
> 
> But this is all a sideshow if you cannot show that PP "sold" tissues to make a profit, as you have claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deny the video's all you want, your credibility just goes further into the shit box! LOLOLOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say my credibility is fine.  And most of the people arguing with me either resort to personal attacks or try and derail the thread.  Which tells me all I need to know.
> 
> I saw nothing in the video that showed PP doing anything illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you need a BRAILLE computer, as you seem to be either blind, or deliberately stupid!
Click to expand...


What laws did they break?


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL now covered by ObumaCare and done by LOCAL doctors and medical centers..... we do not NEED PP taking federal money.... If they can't make it, they DIE as have the thoudands of doctors that have stopped practicing because of Obumacare
> 
> 
> *More Doctors Are Quitting Medicare. Is Obamacare Really To ...*
> www.californiahealthline.org/road-to-reform/2013/more-*doctors*-are...
> A recent Wall Street Journal cover story noted that the number *of physicians* opting out ... More *Doctors* Are *Quitting* Medicare. Is *Obamacare* ... *Obamacare* has been a ...
> 
> *83% of doctors consider quitting because of ObamaCare ...*
> humanevents.com/2012/07/12/83-*of-doctors*-consider-*quitting*-because...
> 83% *of doctors* consider *quitting* ... the survey form was primarily completed by *doctors* who dislike *ObamaCare*. ... In addition to *doctors quitting* their ...
> 
> *Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare*
> Snohomish Times Newspaper Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare
> Nearly one-third *of physicians* in the U.S. could leave the medical profession after Obama s healthcare reform plan becomes law, according to a survey published in The ...
> 
> *Doctors Quitting Early Due to Burdensome Obamacare ...*
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2013/03/28/*doctors-quitting*...*obamacare*-regulations
> Mar 28, 2013 · *Doctors Quitting* Early Due to Burdensome *Obamacare* Regulations. Advertisement. SEARCH. Categories ... among other worries, under *Obamacare*, ...
> 
> *ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business*
> ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business
> *ObamaCare* Would Drive *Doctors Out of Business*. ... who would consider *quitting* if *ObamaCare* ... and hundreds of *thousands* would think about shutting down ...
> 
> *8 of Every 10 Doctors Thinking of Quitting Because of ...*
> godfatherpolitics.com/6095/8-of-every-10-*doctors*-thinking-of...
> 8 of Every 10 *Doctors* Thinking of *Quitting* Because of *Obamacare* The *Doctor* Patient Medical ... These groups represent hundreds of *thousands of physicians* across a ...
> 
> *Survey: 83% of Doctors Considered Quitting Over Obamacare*
> *Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe U.S. news politics world health finance video science technology live news stream*/Newsfront/*obamacare*-*doctors*-threaten-*quitting*/2012/...
> Survey: 83% *of Doctors* Considered *Quitting* Over *Obamacare*. By Todd Beamon | Monday, 09 Jul 2012 07:44 PM Short URL| Email Article| Comment| ...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money."
> 
> Most of the money is from Medicaid.  And none of that goes to abortion.
> 
> But this is all a sideshow if you cannot show that PP "sold" tissues to make a profit, as you have claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not tissue, organs. There is a difference. And no I don't consider 100 to be a lot at all, but the negotiation aspect of it does sound fishy. But at least I will say as of now it doesn't appear to be for considerable profit. But the guy from cmp did say they get worse, has it on video, and in one case I heard about the one clinic or region of clinics was pulling in about 100 thousand. Either way to me it's not the point. The whole fact that they're trying to get a gag order on this, and the furor to prop distractions up like Cecil the fucking lion tells me that they really want this to go away for good reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether there is profit depends on the costs involved.  I doubt it involves taking tissues (or organs), plopping in a tupperware container and shoving them in a refrigerator until Igor comes by to pick them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have seen 4 organ harvest so far, ice and a cooler. That's about all it takes. Well a waiting helicopter to get them wherever quick . But yea, if they know they have a specimen arriving, no reason that they shouldn't be able to arrange quick enough transport. Which is why I suspect after the first video pp said they do it for 30 to 50. There could be other factors, but why not have a set number  for the cost, any other company or charity could figure this simple cost to figure out. But no you have to dilute with "fog of war" bs when spinning a story
Click to expand...


What are the recordkeeping requirements for these donations?

Where do they store them before they are shipped?

What tests are performed on the specimens?  (HIV?)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

WinterBorn said:


> What laws did they break?



They murdered children, then sold their body parts.

Interestingly enough, there's an old semitic myth that holds that Jews steal muslim children to use their bones to make pastries.

It's a horrifically cruel myth, that is being played out in real time by their Ideological Cousins on the Political Left.

This is barbarism of a level heretofore unseen in humanity.  Far exceeding the debauched hedonism of the Nazis, the Stalinists, Maoist and the various other communist cults of the mid-20th century.  

It's unprecedented evil.

Now, any law that provides legality for that, is truly unworthy of any kinship with civilization... far worse than the laws that allowed for Slavery.


----------



## Vigilante

WinterBorn said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALL now covered by ObumaCare and done by LOCAL doctors and medical centers..... we do not NEED PP taking federal money.... If they can't make it, they DIE as have the thoudands of doctors that have stopped practicing because of Obumacare
> 
> 
> *More Doctors Are Quitting Medicare. Is Obamacare Really To ...*
> www.californiahealthline.org/road-to-reform/2013/more-*doctors*-are...
> A recent Wall Street Journal cover story noted that the number *of physicians* opting out ... More *Doctors* Are *Quitting* Medicare. Is *Obamacare* ... *Obamacare* has been a ...
> 
> *83% of doctors consider quitting because of ObamaCare ...*
> humanevents.com/2012/07/12/83-*of-doctors*-consider-*quitting*-because...
> 83% *of doctors* consider *quitting* ... the survey form was primarily completed by *doctors* who dislike *ObamaCare*. ... In addition to *doctors quitting* their ...
> 
> *Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare*
> Snohomish Times Newspaper Thousands of Doctors May Quit Medicine Over Obamacare
> Nearly one-third *of physicians* in the U.S. could leave the medical profession after Obama s healthcare reform plan becomes law, according to a survey published in The ...
> 
> *Doctors Quitting Early Due to Burdensome Obamacare ...*
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2013/03/28/*doctors-quitting*...*obamacare*-regulations
> Mar 28, 2013 · *Doctors Quitting* Early Due to Burdensome *Obamacare* Regulations. Advertisement. SEARCH. Categories ... among other worries, under *Obamacare*, ...
> 
> *ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business*
> ObamaCare Would Drive Doctors Out of Business
> *ObamaCare* Would Drive *Doctors Out of Business*. ... who would consider *quitting* if *ObamaCare* ... and hundreds of *thousands* would think about shutting down ...
> 
> *8 of Every 10 Doctors Thinking of Quitting Because of ...*
> godfatherpolitics.com/6095/8-of-every-10-*doctors*-thinking-of...
> 8 of Every 10 *Doctors* Thinking of *Quitting* Because of *Obamacare* The *Doctor* Patient Medical ... These groups represent hundreds of *thousands of physicians* across a ...
> 
> *Survey: 83% of Doctors Considered Quitting Over Obamacare*
> *Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe U.S. news politics world health finance video science technology live news stream*/Newsfront/*obamacare*-*doctors*-threaten-*quitting*/2012/...
> Survey: 83% *of Doctors* Considered *Quitting* Over *Obamacare*. By Todd Beamon | Monday, 09 Jul 2012 07:44 PM Short URL| Email Article| Comment| ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "However, not all of that money is from the federal government. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding, Planned Parenthood spokesman Tait Sye told us. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money."
> 
> Most of the money is from Medicaid.  And none of that goes to abortion.
> 
> But this is all a sideshow if you cannot show that PP "sold" tissues to make a profit, as you have claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can deny the video's all you want, your credibility just goes further into the shit box! LOLOLOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say my credibility is fine.  And most of the people arguing with me either resort to personal attacks or try and derail the thread.  Which tells me all I need to know.
> 
> I saw nothing in the video that showed PP doing anything illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you need a BRAILLE computer, as you seem to be either blind, or deliberately stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What laws did they break?
Click to expand...

*42 U.S. Code § 289g–2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal ...*
*LII Legal Information Institute* › … › Chapter 6A › Subchapter III › Part H
*42 U.S*. *Code* § 289g–2 - *Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue*. *US Code*; ... provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such *abortion*. (c) ...


----------



## Coyote

FA_Q2 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> That still doesn't make it a strawman.  Yes - I agree, that in general the military does benefit us all.  Looking at specific conflicts however, it is less clear.
> 
> When she responded with: You telling me you don't benefit from the military? * No - he never said that,* he brought up a specific conflict where it is doubtful there was much if any benefit.  Which is what a strawman argument is
> 
> 
> 
> She never stated everyone benefited from the Iraq war.
> 
> Se how they are identical in the manner in which they attack an argument never made.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She said everyone benefited from the military - that all inclusive statement includes the Iraq War - right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it does not.  The Iraq war does not equal the military.
> 
> Are you honestly making the assertion that for everyone to benefit from X EVERYTHING EVER DONE BY X must have been beneficial?
> 
> That argument is blatantly false.
> 
> 
> Everyone benefits from the military. The military has done many things that are not beneficial at all.  Both statements may (and do) co-exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Iraq war is a subset of the military - you can't just exclude it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are making the argument that
> A: something benefits all
> then
> B. everything that it ever took part in must have benefited all
> 
> Sorry but I never excluded any particular war from the military.  I just take issue with what I can see is a blatantly illogical conclusion.
Click to expand...


No...I'm not making *that *argument.  I'm making the argument that the statement on Iraq was not a strawman but the statement jumping to "You telling me you don't benefit from the military?" was.  He never said he didn't benefit from the military.  He was pointing out that some conflicts benefit no one


----------



## JFish123

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Coyote

JFish123 said:


> View attachment 46348
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Right. Another shoddy and ignorant Nazi comparison.


----------



## BlueGin

Coyote said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She never stated everyone benefited from the Iraq war.
> 
> Se how they are identical in the manner in which they attack an argument never made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She said everyone benefited from the military - that all inclusive statement includes the Iraq War - right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it does not.  The Iraq war does not equal the military.
> 
> Are you honestly making the assertion that for everyone to benefit from X EVERYTHING EVER DONE BY X must have been beneficial?
> 
> That argument is blatantly false.
> 
> 
> Everyone benefits from the military. The military has done many things that are not beneficial at all.  Both statements may (and do) co-exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Iraq war is a subset of the military - you can't just exclude it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you are making the argument that
> A: something benefits all
> then
> B. everything that it ever took part in must have benefited all
> 
> Sorry but I never excluded any particular war from the military.  I just take issue with what I can see is a blatantly illogical conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...I'm not making *that *argument.  I'm making the argument that the statement on Iraq was not a strawman but the statement jumping to "You telling me you don't benefit from the military?" was.  He never said he didn't benefit from the military.  He was pointing out that some conflicts benefit no one
Click to expand...


No ...he was making the claim that people shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund the military since they didn't agree with Iraq.

Equating that ...to me agreeing with defunding PP.

Women can get all services that PP offers through other providers. They are not beholden to PP as their only option.

Totally different than taxes that go to fund the military.

Apples and oranges... Like I said.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> They murdered children, then sold their body parts.



waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaaaaaahahahah


----------



## JFish123

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> They murdered children, then sold their body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaaaaaahahahah
Click to expand...

I'm guessing "your" Jesus doesn't mind such things?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JFish123 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> They murdered children, then sold their body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaaaaaahahahah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing "your" Jesus doesn't mind such things?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

he minds except he minds that you are consciously lying to manipulate ...I am laughing at your hysteria "They murdered children, then sold their body parts"...its "crazy stupid"...


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

*I'd like to see the videos before editing.  The O/P doesn't seem to think that might be relevant.  Such a tool.  *


----------



## JFish123

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> They murdered children, then sold their body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaaaaaahahahah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing "your" Jesus doesn't mind such things?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he minds except he minds that you are consciously lying to manipulate ...I am laughing at your hysteria "They murdered children, then sold their body parts"...its "crazy stupid"...
Click to expand...

Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JFish123 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> They murdered children, then sold their body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaaaaaahahahah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing "your" Jesus doesn't mind such things?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he minds except he minds that you are consciously lying to manipulate ...I am laughing at your hysteria "They murdered children, then sold their body parts"...its "crazy stupid"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That is not the immage of Jesus because he was from the middle East ...lying and slander is wrong....


----------



## Coyote

JFish123 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> They murdered children, then sold their body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaaaaaahahahah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing "your" Jesus doesn't mind such things?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he minds except he minds that you are consciously lying to manipulate ...I am laughing at your hysteria "They murdered children, then sold their body parts"...its "crazy stupid"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


He didn't say anything about abortion.


----------



## Care4all

JFish123 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> They murdered children, then sold their body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaaaaaahahahah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing "your" Jesus doesn't mind such things?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he minds except he minds that you are consciously lying to manipulate ...I am laughing at your hysteria "They murdered children, then sold their body parts"...its "crazy stupid"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Jesus said an adulterer is equal to a murderer, do you believe this is true?

And a murderer and someone who lies is equal...

And a murderer and a thief are equal....

Etc.

We all fall short of the glory of God, was His message, no?  That's why we need Him, right?


----------



## JFish123

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> They murdered children, then sold their body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaaaaaahahahah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing "your" Jesus doesn't mind such things?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he minds except he minds that you are consciously lying to manipulate ...I am laughing at your hysteria "They murdered children, then sold their body parts"...its "crazy stupid"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the immage of Jesus because he was from the middle East ...lying and slander is wrong....
Click to expand...

That's a picture of Jesus. A painting to be more precise. Just with glasses and a cigarette added. Cute. Artists didn't paint him middle eastern so that argument doesn't fly, sorry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JFish123

Care4all said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> They murdered children, then sold their body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaaaaaahahahah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing "your" Jesus doesn't mind such things?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he minds except he minds that you are consciously lying to manipulate ...I am laughing at your hysteria "They murdered children, then sold their body parts"...its "crazy stupid"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus said an adulterer is equal to a murderer, do you believe this is true?
> 
> And a murderer and someone who lies is equal...
> 
> And a murderer and a thief are equal....
> 
> Etc.
> 
> We all fall short of the glory of God, was His message, no?  That's why we need Him, right?
Click to expand...

Uh, He said those who look with lust have committed adultery in their heart, not murder. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. Every sin is equally bad before God. But it does NOT give the right to sin, like abortion or say it's ok and defend it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Meet The Extremists Behind The Latest Attacks On Planned Parenthood
SUBMITTED BY: Miranda Blue, Monday 08/03/2015, 2:30pm




As the Senate prepares to vote this afternoon on a bill to strip federal funds from Planned Parenthood, People For the American Way has released a new report detailing the activists behind the latest round of attacks on the women’s health organization, their ideology and ultimate goals. A group called the Center for Medical Progress has promised to release a dozen videos that it claims show that Planned Parenthood is “selling baby parts” for profit. That claim is easily debunked, but as PFAW details, the specific accusations are only part of the point: The latest... MORE


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JFish123 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaaaaaahahahah
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing "your" Jesus doesn't mind such things?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he minds except he minds that you are consciously lying to manipulate ...I am laughing at your hysteria "They murdered children, then sold their body parts"...its "crazy stupid"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus said an adulterer is equal to a murderer, do you believe this is true?
> 
> And a murderer and someone who lies is equal...
> 
> And a murderer and a thief are equal....
> 
> Etc.
> 
> We all fall short of the glory of God, was His message, no?  That's why we need Him, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, He said those who look with lust have committed adultery in their heart, not murder. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. Every sin is equally bad before God. But it does NOT give the right to sin, like abortion or say it's ok and defend it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....


----------



## Carla_Danger

JFish123 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahaaaaaaaaahahahah
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing "your" Jesus doesn't mind such things?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he minds except he minds that you are consciously lying to manipulate ...I am laughing at your hysteria "They murdered children, then sold their body parts"...its "crazy stupid"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the immage of Jesus because he was from the middle East ...lying and slander is wrong....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a picture of Jesus. A painting to be more precise. Just with glasses and a cigarette added. Cute. Artists didn't paint him middle eastern so that argument doesn't fly, sorry.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




I'm not shocked that you don't know the difference between a picture and a painting.


----------



## JFish123

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing "your" Jesus doesn't mind such things?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> he minds except he minds that you are consciously lying to manipulate ...I am laughing at your hysteria "They murdered children, then sold their body parts"...its "crazy stupid"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus said an adulterer is equal to a murderer, do you believe this is true?
> 
> And a murderer and someone who lies is equal...
> 
> And a murderer and a thief are equal....
> 
> Etc.
> 
> We all fall short of the glory of God, was His message, no?  That's why we need Him, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, He said those who look with lust have committed adultery in their heart, not murder. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. Every sin is equally bad before God. But it does NOT give the right to sin, like abortion or say it's ok and defend it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
Click to expand...

Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JFish123

Carla_Danger said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing "your" Jesus doesn't mind such things?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> he minds except he minds that you are consciously lying to manipulate ...I am laughing at your hysteria "They murdered children, then sold their body parts"...its "crazy stupid"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the immage of Jesus because he was from the middle East ...lying and slander is wrong....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a picture of Jesus. A painting to be more precise. Just with glasses and a cigarette added. Cute. Artists didn't paint him middle eastern so that argument doesn't fly, sorry.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not shocked that you don't know the difference between a picture and a painting.
Click to expand...

It's a copy drawing from paintings of Jesus like this one, see any similarities? Minus the cig and glasses?



Doesn't take an arts major to see it



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WinterBorn

JFish123 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> he minds except he minds that you are consciously lying to manipulate ...I am laughing at your hysteria "They murdered children, then sold their body parts"...its "crazy stupid"...
> 
> 
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus said an adulterer is equal to a murderer, do you believe this is true?
> 
> And a murderer and someone who lies is equal...
> 
> And a murderer and a thief are equal....
> 
> Etc.
> 
> We all fall short of the glory of God, was His message, no?  That's why we need Him, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, He said those who look with lust have committed adultery in their heart, not murder. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. Every sin is equally bad before God. But it does NOT give the right to sin, like abortion or say it's ok and defend it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law.   And abortion is legal.


----------



## JFish123

WinterBorn said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said an adulterer is equal to a murderer, do you believe this is true?
> 
> And a murderer and someone who lies is equal...
> 
> And a murderer and a thief are equal....
> 
> Etc.
> 
> We all fall short of the glory of God, was His message, no?  That's why we need Him, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, He said those who look with lust have committed adultery in their heart, not murder. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. Every sin is equally bad before God. But it does NOT give the right to sin, like abortion or say it's ok and defend it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law.   And abortion is legal.
Click to expand...

So was killing Jews in Germany in the 40's. Just because something legal in a country doesn't make it right. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WinterBorn

JFish123 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said an adulterer is equal to a murderer, do you believe this is true?
> 
> And a murderer and someone who lies is equal...
> 
> And a murderer and a thief are equal....
> 
> Etc.
> 
> We all fall short of the glory of God, was His message, no?  That's why we need Him, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, He said those who look with lust have committed adultery in their heart, not murder. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. Every sin is equally bad before God. But it does NOT give the right to sin, like abortion or say it's ok and defend it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law.   And abortion is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was killing Jews in Germany in the 40's. Just because something legal in a country doesn't make it right.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


But it does make it clear of prosecution.

The thread is not about the religious viewpoint of abortion.  It is about the claim that Planned Parenthood was caught selling tissue and organs for profit.


----------



## Faun

JFish123 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said an adulterer is equal to a murderer, do you believe this is true?
> 
> And a murderer and someone who lies is equal...
> 
> And a murderer and a thief are equal....
> 
> Etc.
> 
> We all fall short of the glory of God, was His message, no?  That's why we need Him, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, He said those who look with lust have committed adultery in their heart, not murder. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. Every sin is equally bad before God. But it does NOT give the right to sin, like abortion or say it's ok and defend it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law.   And abortion is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was killing Jews in Germany in the 40's. Just because something legal in a country doesn't make it right.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Just because you read something in a 2000 year old book doesn't make it right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Vigilante said:         

Sale of baby body parts

At least you're consistent at being a liar and wrong.

Planned Parenthood didn't 'sell' body parts.

And an embryo/fetus is not a 'baby.'

Providing medical professionals with tissue samples for vital, appropriate research is both legal and ethical; Planned Parenthood 'violated' no laws, and it's a ridiculous, unfounded lie to maintain otherwise.


----------



## JFish123

Faun said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, He said those who look with lust have committed adultery in their heart, not murder. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. Every sin is equally bad before God. But it does NOT give the right to sin, like abortion or say it's ok and defend it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law.   And abortion is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was killing Jews in Germany in the 40's. Just because something legal in a country doesn't make it right.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because you read something in a 2000 year old book doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

With evidence it does. It takes a lot more faith to be an atheist than it does a non atheist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WinterBorn

JFish123 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
> 
> 
> 
> Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law.   And abortion is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was killing Jews in Germany in the 40's. Just because something legal in a country doesn't make it right.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because you read something in a 2000 year old book doesn't make it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With evidence it does. It takes a lot more faith to be an atheist than it does a non atheist
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Still not relevant.  Your religious dogma does not make constitutional law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

JFish123 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
> 
> 
> 
> Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law.   And abortion is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was killing Jews in Germany in the 40's. Just because something legal in a country doesn't make it right.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because you read something in a 2000 year old book doesn't make it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With evidence it does. It takes a lot more faith to be an atheist than it does a non atheist
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The bible is completely devoid of evidence, which is why it has no legal validity or relevance, and why we have a First Amendment to keep it that way.


----------



## koshergrl

There are mountains of evidence supporting the bible.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Faun said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that any laws were broken.
> 
> However, the bad press is probably the bigger story.
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
Click to expand...


Dude, those videos could have shown the president of Planned Parenthood standing on an auction block taking bids and you'd still post the same line.  Your "arguments" are nothing more than mindless partisan kneejerking.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JFish123 said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> he minds except he minds that you are consciously lying to manipulate ...I am laughing at your hysteria "They murdered children, then sold their body parts"...its "crazy stupid"...
> 
> 
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the immage of Jesus because he was from the middle East ...lying and slander is wrong....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a picture of Jesus. A painting to be more precise. Just with glasses and a cigarette added. Cute. Artists didn't paint him middle eastern so that argument doesn't fly, sorry.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not shocked that you don't know the difference between a picture and a painting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a copy drawing from paintings of Jesus like this one, see any similarities? Minus the cig and glasses?
> View attachment 46360
> Doesn't take an arts major to see it
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

who is that someone from American Idol ? 
Here is what Jesus more likely looked like


----------



## JFish123

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the immage of Jesus because he was from the middle East ...lying and slander is wrong....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a picture of Jesus. A painting to be more precise. Just with glasses and a cigarette added. Cute. Artists didn't paint him middle eastern so that argument doesn't fly, sorry.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not shocked that you don't know the difference between a picture and a painting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a copy drawing from paintings of Jesus like this one, see any similarities? Minus the cig and glasses?
> View attachment 46360
> Doesn't take an arts major to see it
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who is that someone from American Idol ?
> Here is what Jesus more likely looked like
Click to expand...

And so? That's not how artists rendered Him. They painted Him like your picture hence it's Jesus on your Profile pic, which is what's this is all about. Sorry bro. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Because it looks like a baby ? Maybe because it is a baby? Late term. Meaning third trimester is most of the time viable. By your own definition that should be a baby. But I guess your idea is that it's a fetus until it passes through the vagina, then it magically turns to a baby. I'm sorry but you lost the right to call it fetal tissue since pp is passing out actual functioning organs



Except no one claimed these were 'functioning' organs.  Had the fetus fell out at that moment, it wouldn't have lived more than a few minutes. 

Women only have third trimester abortions if something has gone HORRIBLY WRONG with the pregnancy.  This is what you guys don't seem to get or don't care.  

But it was never about the babies for you guys.  It was about making damned sure that woman doesn't control her sexuality. 

Scratch a pro-lifer, you find a misogynist. Every time.


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> lucrative meaning they're bringing in 1.3billion as a charity, 500 million of that coming from the fed for providing services that many other clinics...almost every other clinic provides.



Yeah, isn't that like saying, "Hey, why do we need food stamps. You can totally get those services at grocery stores!"


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> No ...he was making the claim that people shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund the military since they didn't agree with Iraq.
> 
> Equating that ...to me agreeing with defunding PP.
> 
> Women can get all services that PP offers through other providers. They are not beholden to PP as their only option.
> 
> Totally different than taxes that go to fund the military.
> 
> Apples and oranges... Like I said.




Well, no, it really isn't. 

Actually, here's the thing. Women can't get the services PP provides in most cases from other providers.  First they need to get a referal from their primary care physician.  Then they need to find an OB/GYN, a lot of whom won't take MedicAid patients.  There's already a shortage of OB/GYN's in this country, partially because the insurance is so high to practice in that kind of medicine, partially because religious nutters shoot them if they happen to provide abortions. 

If I have to fund the War in Iraq, you have to fund Planned Parenthood. 

Or maybe we sould just have a Schedule attached to the 1040. Check off the programs you want to support.  If not enough people check off a program, it doesn't get funded. 

Betcha PP gets fully funded before the Iraq War does.


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> There are mountains of evidence supporting the bible.



Talking Snakes
Talking Donkeys
Giants
satyrs
Unicorns

all appear in the bible. Where's the evidence?


----------



## Pedro de San Patricio

JoeB131 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are mountains of evidence supporting the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking Snakes
> Talking Donkeys
> Giants
> satyrs
> Unicorns
> 
> all appear in the bible. Where's the evidence?
Click to expand...

Also wizards and witches, ghosts, dragons, and evil spirits. It pretty much reads like the ancient pan-Semitic Harry Potter.


----------



## JFish123

JoeB131 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are mountains of evidence supporting the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking Snakes
> Talking Donkeys
> Giants
> satyrs
> Unicorns
> 
> all appear in the bible. Where's the evidence?
Click to expand...

No unicorns in bible. And if God exists would anything be impossible for Him? It takes far more faith to be an atheist than not one I'm afraid. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JFish123

Pedro de San Patricio said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are mountains of evidence supporting the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking Snakes
> Talking Donkeys
> Giants
> satyrs
> Unicorns
> 
> all appear in the bible. Where's the evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also wizards and witches, ghosts, dragons, and evil spirits. It pretty much reads like the ancient pan-Semitic Harry Potter.
Click to expand...

No dragons in the bible. And is anything too much for God? No. It takes more faith to be an atheist then not to be one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JFish123 said:


> And so? That's not how artists rendered Him. They painted Him like your picture hence it's Jesus on your Profile pic, which is what's this is all about. Sorry bro.



You are sorry alright...sorry bro


----------



## EverCurious

JFish123 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are mountains of evidence supporting the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking Snakes
> Talking Donkeys
> Giants
> satyrs
> Unicorns
> 
> all appear in the bible. Where's the evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No unicorns in bible. And if God exists would anything be impossible for Him? It takes far more faith to be an atheist than not one I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


He's got a point on the Unicorn anyway:



			
				unicorn translation info said:
			
		

> In 1611, when the KJV was produced, the translators used the word "unicorn" to translate a single Hebrew word, רְאֵם _reym_, because they didn't know what the original Hebrew word meant. It is the English that critics complain about, not the original Hebrew text. Let's take a look at a few of the verses in the KJV that use the word "unicorn."
> 
> 
> Job. 39:9-10 KJV, "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?"
> Psalm 22:21 KJV, "Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."
> Isaiah 34:7 KJV, "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
> See also KJV in Num. 23:22; Nu. 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Psalm 29:6; 92:10.
> In every occurrence of the English word "unicorn," it is the same Hebrew word ראם _reym_.
> 
> 
> רְאֵם [râʾem, râʾeym, reym, rem /reh·ame/] n m. From 7213; TWOT 2096a; GK 8028; Nine occurrences; AV translates as “unicorn” nine times. 1 probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known. 1
> reem or רְאֵים reem or רֵים rem or רֵם rem (910b); from 7213; a wild ox:—wild ox(7),  wild oxen(2).2
> 8028 רְאֵם (reʾēm): n.masc.; ≡ Str 7214; TWOT 2096a—1. LN 4.1–4.37 (most versions) wild ox, aurochs, i.e., an extinct, long-horned, ancestor of the domestic cattle, Bos primigenius bojanus (Nu 23:22; 24:8; Dt 33:17; Job 39:9, 10; Ps 22:21[EB 21]; 92:11[EB 10]; Isa 34:7+), note: kjv, lxx, VULG. translate as a single-horned animal, such as rhinoceros or mysterious unicorn; 2. LN 4.1–4.37 unit: בֵּן רְאֵם (bēn reʾēm) adolescent wild ox, i.e., a non-domestic ox likely under two years old (Ps 29:6+) 3
> *Critics*
> Of course critics will just say that the Bible translators altered the English to escape the inclusion of mythical creatures. But again, they must realize that the KJV is in English, and it is the English they are complaining about, not the original Hebrew word.
> 
> 
> *UNICORN* kjv rendering for an animal called a “wild ox” in the nlt and most modern translations (Nm 24:8; Dt 33:17). Unicorn is an unfortunate translation (following the Septuagint) because the animal had two horns, not one. _See_ Animals (Wild Ox). 4
> *Unicorn--*described as an animal of great ferocity and strength (Num. 23:22), R.V., “wild ox,” marg., “ox-antelope;” 24:8; Isa. 34:7, R.V., “wild oxen”), and untamable (Job 39:9). It was in reality a two-horned animal; but the exact reference of the word so rendered (reem) is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo; others, the white antelope, called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes the Bos primigenius (“primitive ox”), which is now extinct all over the world. This was the auerochs of the Germans, and the urus described by Caesar (Gal. Bel., vi.28) as inhabiting the Hercynian forest. The word thus rendered has been found in an Assyrian inscription written over the wild ox or bison, which some also suppose to be the animal intended (comp. Deut. 33:17; Ps. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10). 5
> *The LXX--Septuagint*
> The LXX (The Greek translation of the Old Testament done around 250 B.C.) says of Job 39:9, βουλήσεται δέ σοι *μονόκερως* δουλεῦσαι ἢ κοιμηθῆναι ἐπὶ φάτνης σου. The Greek word *μονόκερως* _monokeros_ is what the Hebrews tranlsated the Hebrew word רְאֵם _reym_ into. It is an unfortunate rendering. It literally means "one horn," and this is why the KJV rendered it as unicorn since it was using the LXX and not the original Hebrew here.


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my post that says that. But, Abortion is wrong so Planned Parenthood is wrong. So says the man whose image you use. Try to get to know Him before using His image.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said an adulterer is equal to a murderer, do you believe this is true?
> 
> And a murderer and someone who lies is equal...
> 
> And a murderer and a thief are equal....
> 
> Etc.
> 
> We all fall short of the glory of God, was His message, no?  That's why we need Him, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, He said those who look with lust have committed adultery in their heart, not murder. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. Every sin is equally bad before God. But it does NOT give the right to sin, like abortion or say it's ok and defend it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law.   And abortion is legal.
Click to expand...

But so was jim crow, slavery, eminent domain (still is), those were all laws and policy, does not make them right. And right to life is in the constitution, which was created from religious dogma saying that god gives us the right to choose, speak, defend ourselves, etc.


----------



## EverCurious

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus said an adulterer is equal to a murderer, do you believe this is true?
> 
> And a murderer and someone who lies is equal...
> 
> And a murderer and a thief are equal....
> 
> Etc.
> 
> We all fall short of the glory of God, was His message, no?  That's why we need Him, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, He said those who look with lust have committed adultery in their heart, not murder. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. Every sin is equally bad before God. But it does NOT give the right to sin, like abortion or say it's ok and defend it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law.   And abortion is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But so was jim crow, slavery, eminent domain (still is), those were all laws and policy, does not make them right. And right to life is in the constitution, which was created from religious dogma saying that god gives us the right to choose, speak, defend ourselves, etc.
Click to expand...


The constitution defines that life begins at viability, at minimum 21 weeks, as per Roe vs Wade and many other courts of the nation.


----------



## koshergrl

EverCurious said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are mountains of evidence supporting the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking Snakes
> Talking Donkeys
> Giants
> satyrs
> Unicorns
> 
> all appear in the bible. Where's the evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No unicorns in bible. And if God exists would anything be impossible for Him? It takes far more faith to be an atheist than not one I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's got a point on the Unicorn anyway:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unicorn translation info said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1611, when the KJV was produced, the translators used the word "unicorn" to translate a single Hebrew word, רְאֵם _reym_, because they didn't know what the original Hebrew word meant. It is the English that critics complain about, not the original Hebrew text. Let's take a look at a few of the verses in the KJV that use the word "unicorn."
> 
> 
> Job. 39:9-10 KJV, "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?"
> Psalm 22:21 KJV, "Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."
> Isaiah 34:7 KJV, "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
> See also KJV in Num. 23:22; Nu. 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Psalm 29:6; 92:10.
> In every occurrence of the English word "unicorn," it is the same Hebrew word ראם _reym_.
> 
> 
> רְאֵם [râʾem, râʾeym, reym, rem /reh·ame/] n m. From 7213; TWOT 2096a; GK 8028; Nine occurrences; AV translates as “unicorn” nine times. 1 probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known. 1
> reem or רְאֵים reem or רֵים rem or רֵם rem (910b); from 7213; a wild ox:—wild ox(7),  wild oxen(2).2
> 8028 רְאֵם (reʾēm): n.masc.; ≡ Str 7214; TWOT 2096a—1. LN 4.1–4.37 (most versions) wild ox, aurochs, i.e., an extinct, long-horned, ancestor of the domestic cattle, Bos primigenius bojanus (Nu 23:22; 24:8; Dt 33:17; Job 39:9, 10; Ps 22:21[EB 21]; 92:11[EB 10]; Isa 34:7+), note: kjv, lxx, VULG. translate as a single-horned animal, such as rhinoceros or mysterious unicorn; 2. LN 4.1–4.37 unit: בֵּן רְאֵם (bēn reʾēm) adolescent wild ox, i.e., a non-domestic ox likely under two years old (Ps 29:6+) 3
> *Critics*
> Of course critics will just say that the Bible translators altered the English to escape the inclusion of mythical creatures. But again, they must realize that the KJV is in English, and it is the English they are complaining about, not the original Hebrew word.
> 
> 
> *UNICORN* kjv rendering for an animal called a “wild ox” in the nlt and most modern translations (Nm 24:8; Dt 33:17). Unicorn is an unfortunate translation (following the Septuagint) because the animal had two horns, not one. _See_ Animals (Wild Ox). 4
> *Unicorn--*described as an animal of great ferocity and strength (Num. 23:22), R.V., “wild ox,” marg., “ox-antelope;” 24:8; Isa. 34:7, R.V., “wild oxen”), and untamable (Job 39:9). It was in reality a two-horned animal; but the exact reference of the word so rendered (reem) is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo; others, the white antelope, called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes the Bos primigenius (“primitive ox”), which is now extinct all over the world. This was the auerochs of the Germans, and the urus described by Caesar (Gal. Bel., vi.28) as inhabiting the Hercynian forest. The word thus rendered has been found in an Assyrian inscription written over the wild ox or bison, which some also suppose to be the animal intended (comp. Deut. 33:17; Ps. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10). 5
> *The LXX--Septuagint*
> The LXX (The Greek translation of the Old Testament done around 250 B.C.) says of Job 39:9, βουλήσεται δέ σοι *μονόκερως* δουλεῦσαι ἢ κοιμηθῆναι ἐπὶ φάτνης σου. The Greek word *μονόκερως* _monokeros_ is what the Hebrews tranlsated the Hebrew word רְאֵם _reym_ into. It is an unfortunate rendering. It literally means "one horn," and this is why the KJV rendered it as unicorn since it was using the LXX and not the original Hebrew here.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

People like to pretend that there were no Hebrew scholars in hand to assist with the development of the kjv. History know-nothings actually believe that the best educated rulers of the past were as retarded as they are.


----------



## Faun

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, those videos could have shown the president of Planned Parenthood standing on an auction block taking bids and you'd still post the same line.  Your "arguments" are nothing more than mindless partisan kneejerking.
Click to expand...

Regardless of your hyperbole, the videos do not indicate what you claim. Again, they indicate charges to cover costs. The specimens are donated, not sold.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Faun said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "minimal" fees are negotiable? LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can be when you don't know how much the expenses are. She can't even afford a tune up on a Lamborghini, no less purchasing one, making a few dollars on such a transaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because God knows, PP only butchers a few babies here and there.  It's not like they're doing a ghastly volume business in fetal corpses, or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your strawman aside, the woman from PP in that video intimated she was somewhat removed from the costs of those services. It's highly plausible she was indeed not up to date with the current costs involved.
Click to expand...

 
Riiiight.  So now your lame argument is that Planned Parenthood is such an inefficient and unprofessional organization that they have people taking meetings about topics they aren't qualified to address?  All the more reason not to give them our tax money.


----------



## Cecilie1200

EverCurious said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, He said those who look with lust have committed adultery in their heart, not murder. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. Every sin is equally bad before God. But it does NOT give the right to sin, like abortion or say it's ok and defend it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law.   And abortion is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But so was jim crow, slavery, eminent domain (still is), those were all laws and policy, does not make them right. And right to life is in the constitution, which was created from religious dogma saying that god gives us the right to choose, speak, defend ourselves, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution defines that life begins at viability, at minimum 21 weeks, as per Roe vs Wade and many other courts of the nation.
Click to expand...

 
It does?!  Would you mind quoting and citing the exact Article/Amendment which mentions abortion and provides a specific definition of life, as "viability" or anything else?  Thanks so much.  I know I'm not the only one who has looked in vain for those words anywhere in the Constitution's text.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Faun said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's also illegal to sell human body parts.
> 
> 
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, those videos could have shown the president of Planned Parenthood standing on an auction block taking bids and you'd still post the same line.  Your "arguments" are nothing more than mindless partisan kneejerking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of your hyperbole, the videos do not indicate what you claim. Again, they indicate charges to cover costs. The specimens are donated, not sold.
Click to expand...

 
"Squawk!  The memo told me I believe this!  Squawk!  Polly want an abortion!  Squawk!"

You'd make a better argument if your lips weren't so firmly planted on any liberal ass that presents itself, just FYI.  Your complete abdication of any and all dignity in pursuit of political agenda makes me sad to know that you exist.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are mountains of evidence supporting the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking Snakes
> Talking Donkeys
> Giants
> satyrs
> Unicorns
> 
> all appear in the bible. Where's the evidence?
Click to expand...

Keep on beating up that straw man, your doing well. Where is your evidence that it is not human life? I got my evidence of 42 chromosomes, functioning cells and ORGANS, and the hallmarks required to be considered life. And yes the organs function, not 100% but neither do a newborns. What your saying, is like saying a caterpillar  is not the same species as a butterfly, because it doesn't have wings. That's a better argument than a fetus not being human life, since in the cocoon that caterpillar turns to soup, and almost entirely changes. If I rip out a pacemaker, breathing tube, insulin regulator, or dropped a newborn or a severely autistic child on the floor they will die too. And the constitution was written by religious nuts who said God gives us the right to disagree with him, no man should have the power to force others to agree with them. These religious nuts also said god gave us life, therefore no man should have the power to take it. These rights are inalienable rights from god, according to them. I happen to believe in those rights.


----------



## Faun

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "minimal" fees are negotiable? LMAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can be when you don't know how much the expenses are. She can't even afford a tune up on a Lamborghini, no less purchasing one, making a few dollars on such a transaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because God knows, PP only butchers a few babies here and there.  It's not like they're doing a ghastly volume business in fetal corpses, or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your strawman aside, the woman from PP in that video intimated she was somewhat removed from the costs of those services. It's highly plausible she was indeed not up to date with the current costs involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiight.  So now your lame argument is that Planned Parenthood is such an inefficient and unprofessional organization that they have people taking meetings about topics they aren't qualified to address?  All the more reason not to give them our tax money.
Click to expand...

So don't pay your taxes. Then your money won't go to them.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> No ...he was making the claim that people shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund the military since they didn't agree with Iraq.
> 
> Equating that ...to me agreeing with defunding PP.
> 
> Women can get all services that PP offers through other providers. They are not beholden to PP as their only option.
> 
> Totally different than taxes that go to fund the military.
> 
> Apples and oranges... Like I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, it really isn't.
> 
> Actually, here's the thing. Women can't get the services PP provides in most cases from other providers.  First they need to get a referal from their primary care physician.  Then they need to find an OB/GYN, a lot of whom won't take MedicAid patients.  There's already a shortage of OB/GYN's in this country, partially because the insurance is so high to practice in that kind of medicine, partially because religious nutters shoot them if they happen to provide abortions.
> 
> If I have to fund the War in Iraq, you have to fund Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Or maybe we sould just have a Schedule attached to the 1040. Check off the programs you want to support.  If not enough people check off a program, it doesn't get funded.
> 
> Betcha PP gets fully funded before the Iraq War does.
Click to expand...


I find OBGYN's for girls on Medicaid everyday. It's not that hard.

And no they don't need a referral. 

Strike two.

Hey bonehead. If it's so hard to get care on Medicaid. Why did you loons force all the low income people to sign up?


----------



## Faun

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, those videos could have shown the president of Planned Parenthood standing on an auction block taking bids and you'd still post the same line.  Your "arguments" are nothing more than mindless partisan kneejerking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of your hyperbole, the videos do not indicate what you claim. Again, they indicate charges to cover costs. The specimens are donated, not sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Squawk!  The memo told me I believe this!  Squawk!  Polly want an abortion!  Squawk!"
> 
> You'd make a better argument if your lips weren't so firmly planted on any liberal ass that presents itself, just FYI.  Your complete abdication of any and all dignity in pursuit of political agenda makes me sad to know that you exist.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't get so frustrated cause you can't prove your delusions. There is no memo. I watched the videos. There is no sale indicated in them; only donations. You can bitch and moan all you want -- that will not make a discussion of a sale magically appear in them.

But don't let go of your hopes & dreams. There are purportedly more incriminating videos yet to be released. Who knows, maybe you'll get lucky.


----------



## BlueGin

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, those videos could have shown the president of Planned Parenthood standing on an auction block taking bids and you'd still post the same line.  Your "arguments" are nothing more than mindless partisan kneejerking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of your hyperbole, the videos do not indicate what you claim. Again, they indicate charges to cover costs. The specimens are donated, not sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Squawk!  The memo told me I believe this!  Squawk!  Polly want an abortion!  Squawk!"
> 
> You'd make a better argument if your lips weren't so firmly planted on any liberal ass that presents itself, just FYI.  Your complete abdication of any and all dignity in pursuit of political agenda makes me sad to know that you exist.
Click to expand...


I like how they are now throwing Obamacare's Medicaid coverage under the bus after defending it to the death just last month.

Stupid sheep


----------



## Faun

BlueGin said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> 
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, those videos could have shown the president of Planned Parenthood standing on an auction block taking bids and you'd still post the same line.  Your "arguments" are nothing more than mindless partisan kneejerking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of your hyperbole, the videos do not indicate what you claim. Again, they indicate charges to cover costs. The specimens are donated, not sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Squawk!  The memo told me I believe this!  Squawk!  Polly want an abortion!  Squawk!"
> 
> You'd make a better argument if your lips weren't so firmly planted on any liberal ass that presents itself, just FYI.  Your complete abdication of any and all dignity in pursuit of political agenda makes me sad to know that you exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like how they are now throwing Obamacare's Medicaid coverage under the bus after defending it to the death just last month.
> 
> Stupid sheep
Click to expand...

Who's _'they?"_ I've said nothing about ObamaCare's Medicaid coverage then or now.


----------



## sakinago

EverCurious said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, He said those who look with lust have committed adultery in their heart, not murder. But that's neither here nor there I suppose. Every sin is equally bad before God. But it does NOT give the right to sin, like abortion or say it's ok and defend it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law.   And abortion is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But so was jim crow, slavery, eminent domain (still is), those were all laws and policy, does not make them right. And right to life is in the constitution, which was created from religious dogma saying that god gives us the right to choose, speak, defend ourselves, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution defines that life begins at viability, at minimum 21 weeks, as per Roe vs Wade and many other courts of the nation.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, roe v wade was about it not being fair that you could get abortions in some states but not in others, much like the gay marriage ruling. The constitution at one point also said blacks only counted as 3/5ths


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

*Meet The Extremists Behind The Latest Attacks On Planned Parenthood*
Submitted by Miranda Blue on Monday, 8/3/2015 2:30 pm
As the Senate prepares to vote this afternoon on a bill to strip federal funds from Planned Parenthood, People For the American Way has released a new report detailing the activists behind the latest round of attacks on the women’s health organization, their ideology and ultimate goals.

A group called the *Center for Medical Progress* has promised to release a dozen videos that it claims show that Planned Parenthood is “selling baby parts” for profit. *That claim is easily debunked, but as PFAW details, the specific accusations are only part of the point:*

The latest Planned Parenthood smear falls in a long line of attacks on the organization that have* failed at proving any wrongdoing but succeeded at reinforcing long-held myths about the organization within the anti-choice movement*. Previous attacks by activists related to the latest series of videos have made flimsy attempts to “prove” that Planned Parenthood targets people of color and harbors sex traffickers. *Similarly, the latest attack hopes to reinforce the longstanding anti-choice myth that Planned Parenthood is a massive “industry” that preys on women for profit.* None of these specific claims have held up to the smallest amount of scrutiny, but that was never the point. -

The report also details the anti-choice activists behind the Center for Medical Progress, including *Live Action’s Lila Rose, who has called for abortions to be performed “in the public square” and Operation Rescue’s Troy Newman, who once publicly celebrated the death of an abortion provider. *- See more at: Meet The Extremists Behind The Latest Attacks On Planned Parenthood Right Wing Watch


----------



## HenryBHough

OK, you've seen the movie....

Now comes what?  Tee Shirts? Headbands?  Sliced Lunch Meats?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos: Poll
More than half of respondents said they are inclined to believe Planned Parenthood’s side of the story.




> The family planning provider says *the videos actually show doctors discussing reimbursement for the costs of donating fetal tissue for medical research,* which is legal because it is not for profit.
> 
> Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million a year in federal funds, which it uses for contraception services, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, and other non-abortion services.* Nearly a quarter of women polled said they had personally visited a Planned Parenthood clinic for health care, and 61 percent of independent women voters said they would favor a candidate who wants to continue funding the provider.* Of people inclined to vote Republican, a quarter said they preferred a candidate who wanted to continue funding Planned Parenthood, said Geoff Garin, president of Hart Research.



Read More: America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos Poll


----------



## Stephanie

Meet the Extremist from Rightwing watch. You can't get anymore of some LYING extremist than that site. wake up folks. they are CALLING all of you people who are calling to defund PP every vile NAME they could come up with. THIS is what they do.....

vote this party and crap out of lives.


oh and here take a looksee
SNIP:
Fifth undercover video on Planned Parenthood: Diversification of the revenue Stream


----------



## Stephanie

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos: Poll
> More than half of respondents said they are inclined to believe Planned Parenthood’s side of the story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The family planning provider says *the videos actually show doctors discussing reimbursement for the costs of donating fetal tissue for medical research,* which is legal because it is not for profit.
> 
> Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million a year in federal funds, which it uses for contraception services, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, and other non-abortion services.* Nearly a quarter of women polled said they had personally visited a Planned Parenthood clinic for health care, and 61 percent of independent women voters said they would favor a candidate who wants to continue funding the provider.* Of people inclined to vote Republican, a quarter said they preferred a candidate who wanted to continue funding Planned Parenthood, said Geoff Garin, president of Hart Research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read More: America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos Poll
Click to expand...


man you have all the unworthy leftwing site going on. Not one of them is Reputable . and you're becoming Hysterical..... you on the left might want to go save up for abortion. because this isn't going to end. THE NEXT video is out


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Stephanie said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos: Poll
> More than half of respondents said they are inclined to believe Planned Parenthood’s side of the story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The family planning provider says *the videos actually show doctors discussing reimbursement for the costs of donating fetal tissue for medical research,* which is legal because it is not for profit.
> 
> Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million a year in federal funds, which it uses for contraception services, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, and other non-abortion services.* Nearly a quarter of women polled said they had personally visited a Planned Parenthood clinic for health care, and 61 percent of independent women voters said they would favor a candidate who wants to continue funding the provider.* Of people inclined to vote Republican, a quarter said they preferred a candidate who wanted to continue funding Planned Parenthood, said Geoff Garin, president of Hart Research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read More: America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos Poll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> man you have all the unworthy leftwing site going on. Not one of them is Reputable . and you're becoming Hysterical..... you on the left might want to go save up for abortion. because this isn't going to end. THE NEXT video is out
Click to expand...


Refute the poll then. Refute the information about all of the vital services that PP provides, and refute this: 





> DEBUNKED: Planned Parenthood Undercover Videos Are Bogus



Why do you hate women, Stephanie ?


----------



## Stephanie

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos: Poll
> More than half of respondents said they are inclined to believe Planned Parenthood’s side of the story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The family planning provider says *the videos actually show doctors discussing reimbursement for the costs of donating fetal tissue for medical research,* which is legal because it is not for profit.
> 
> Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million a year in federal funds, which it uses for contraception services, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, and other non-abortion services.* Nearly a quarter of women polled said they had personally visited a Planned Parenthood clinic for health care, and 61 percent of independent women voters said they would favor a candidate who wants to continue funding the provider.* Of people inclined to vote Republican, a quarter said they preferred a candidate who wanted to continue funding Planned Parenthood, said Geoff Garin, president of Hart Research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read More: America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos Poll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> man you have all the unworthy leftwing site going on. Not one of them is Reputable . and you're becoming Hysterical..... you on the left might want to go save up for abortion. because this isn't going to end. THE NEXT video is out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refute the poll then. Refute the information about all of the vital services that PP provides, and refute this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DEBUNKED: Planned Parenthood Undercover Videos Are Bogus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you hate women, Stephanie ?
Click to expand...


you know what. you need go take a break. I'm afraid you are going to hurt yourself or something.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Stephanie said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos: Poll
> More than half of respondents said they are inclined to believe Planned Parenthood’s side of the story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The family planning provider says *the videos actually show doctors discussing reimbursement for the costs of donating fetal tissue for medical research,* which is legal because it is not for profit.
> 
> Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million a year in federal funds, which it uses for contraception services, sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment, and other non-abortion services.* Nearly a quarter of women polled said they had personally visited a Planned Parenthood clinic for health care, and 61 percent of independent women voters said they would favor a candidate who wants to continue funding the provider.* Of people inclined to vote Republican, a quarter said they preferred a candidate who wanted to continue funding Planned Parenthood, said Geoff Garin, president of Hart Research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read More: America Still Wants To Fund Planned Parenthood After Sting Videos Poll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> man you have all the unworthy leftwing site going on. Not one of them is Reputable . and you're becoming Hysterical..... you on the left might want to go save up for abortion. because this isn't going to end. THE NEXT video is out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Refute the poll then. Refute the information about all of the vital services that PP provides, and refute this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DEBUNKED: Planned Parenthood Undercover Videos Are Bogus
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you hate women, Stephanie ?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you know what. you need go take a break. I'm afraid you are going to hurt yourself or something.
Click to expand...


As much as you might wish-not a chance. Thank you for admitting that you do not have a rebuttal. All you have are wise cracks.


----------



## Stephanie

THIS is what every state needs to do folks. Contact your STATE Representatives. THIS lowlife CONGRESS isn't going to do as you want. or start blowing the phones up for these baby killing supporters in Congress

SNIP:

*Jindal: We've Canceled Medicaid Contract with Planned Parenthood*
* "It has become clear that this is not an organization that is worthy of receiving public assistance from the state." *
8.4.2015   
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal issuedpress release Monday announcing that the state is terminating its Medicaid contract with the nation's leading abortion provider Planned Parenthood.

The announcement follows the release of four undercover expose videos (several more will likely be posted in the coming weeks) showing Planned Parenthood's high-level medical personnel negotiating prices for the sale of fetal body parts and explaining how their doctors alter the abortion procedure to better procure the "tissue," both potentially illegal activities. 

After Jindal ordered the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals to investigate the embattled abortion provider's practices, DHH has now informed Planned Parenthood that it would know longer contract with them for Medicaid services. 

A statement from Gov. Jindal's office Monday explained the state's decision to cancel its partnership with the organization, citing its legal right to "cancel the contract at will after providing written notice" and underscoring that cancellation of the contract "does not jeopardize" providing services to women across the state as Louisiana has contracts with several women's health providers. 

Here's the complete press release:

all of it here:
Jindal We ve Canceled Medicaid Contract with Planned Parenthood Truth Revolt


----------



## Vigilante

Oh, and for you UNCIVILIZES, IMMORAL, UNETHICAL scumbags of the left HERE is the full almost 3 hours video, so you lying pieces of shit can now suck my cock! Oh, and BTW ALL the unedited full length video's are at The Center for Medical Progress website, If you care to spend a leisurely day watching them.... I understand there are STILL 7 more coming out, and you know they've saved the most vicious for last!

FULL, UNEDITED FOOTAGE: Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to be an @ss?
> 
> Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics?  Why shouldn't a man read about female issues?  If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand?  A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?
> 
> Chiffon????  you should change you screen name to silly after that comment.  Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen.  You have a brain, use it to think before posting.
> 
> People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control.  I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them.  As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.
> 
> The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole.  Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure.  It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body.  It is a residual electrical response.  Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.
> 
> The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.
> 
> No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion.  When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.
> 
> You want to save unwanted children?  Go adopt a few and care for them.  No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth.  Adoption is not an easy choice either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  It is her choice and no one else?  Are you POSITIVE about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already.  Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights *but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
Click to expand...


Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?


----------



## aris2chat

Vigilante said:


> Love the little LION comparisons.....



Women found ways throughout history to end unwanted pregnancy, many with deadly consequences for her.  Why are you bothered that tissue that otherwise would be disposed of might actually be of benefit to the living?
It is wonderful that there are happy children in the world but shy should a woman and a fetus both be unhappy because it was a life that should not have been forced to be carried and born and then lost in a broken system filled with far too many children already?

Deal with the lives in the system already before you make demands on women over their own bodies.


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  It is her choice and no one else?  Are you POSITIVE about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already.  Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights *but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
Click to expand...

So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?


----------



## aris2chat

It is not a partial birth in the first three months.  Fetus is too underdeveloped.
PBA are medical choices to save the woman's life or undue suffering of the fetus, if it lives.
If women can choose to terminate to under go medical treatment for themselves, why should they not have that right over their body if they are not ready to take that risk for a fetus they are not ready to care for?  Would you deny a woman cancer treatment because she is pregnant?  Would you force her to give up her life for that of a fetus?  What is a woman had some other illness or addiction that might threaten her life or that of the fetus?  Under what circumstances does a woman ever have a choice or control over her body?

Why do you care if the tissue is incinerated or can be used for research?  You don't care about the lives that could be saved by that research?
What if those threatened by ebola?  Do you think there would be a vaccine for any strain without it?  How many more years or decades would it have taken?  What of other potential pandemics?


----------



## EverCurious

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are mountains of evidence supporting the bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talking Snakes
> Talking Donkeys
> Giants
> satyrs
> Unicorns
> 
> all appear in the bible. Where's the evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No unicorns in bible. And if God exists would anything be impossible for Him? It takes far more faith to be an atheist than not one I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's got a point on the Unicorn anyway:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unicorn translation info said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1611, when the KJV was produced, the translators used the word "unicorn" to translate a single Hebrew word, רְאֵם _reym_, because they didn't know what the original Hebrew word meant. It is the English that critics complain about, not the original Hebrew text. Let's take a look at a few of the verses in the KJV that use the word "unicorn."
> 
> 
> Job. 39:9-10 KJV, "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?"
> Psalm 22:21 KJV, "Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."
> Isaiah 34:7 KJV, "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
> See also KJV in Num. 23:22; Nu. 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Psalm 29:6; 92:10.
> In every occurrence of the English word "unicorn," it is the same Hebrew word ראם _reym_.
> 
> 
> רְאֵם [râʾem, râʾeym, reym, rem /reh·ame/] n m. From 7213; TWOT 2096a; GK 8028; Nine occurrences; AV translates as “unicorn” nine times. 1 probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known. 1
> reem or רְאֵים reem or רֵים rem or רֵם rem (910b); from 7213; a wild ox:—wild ox(7),  wild oxen(2).2
> 8028 רְאֵם (reʾēm): n.masc.; ≡ Str 7214; TWOT 2096a—1. LN 4.1–4.37 (most versions) wild ox, aurochs, i.e., an extinct, long-horned, ancestor of the domestic cattle, Bos primigenius bojanus (Nu 23:22; 24:8; Dt 33:17; Job 39:9, 10; Ps 22:21[EB 21]; 92:11[EB 10]; Isa 34:7+), note: kjv, lxx, VULG. translate as a single-horned animal, such as rhinoceros or mysterious unicorn; 2. LN 4.1–4.37 unit: בֵּן רְאֵם (bēn reʾēm) adolescent wild ox, i.e., a non-domestic ox likely under two years old (Ps 29:6+) 3
> *Critics*
> Of course critics will just say that the Bible translators altered the English to escape the inclusion of mythical creatures. But again, they must realize that the KJV is in English, and it is the English they are complaining about, not the original Hebrew word.
> 
> 
> *UNICORN* kjv rendering for an animal called a “wild ox” in the nlt and most modern translations (Nm 24:8; Dt 33:17). Unicorn is an unfortunate translation (following the Septuagint) because the animal had two horns, not one. _See_ Animals (Wild Ox). 4
> *Unicorn--*described as an animal of great ferocity and strength (Num. 23:22), R.V., “wild ox,” marg., “ox-antelope;” 24:8; Isa. 34:7, R.V., “wild oxen”), and untamable (Job 39:9). It was in reality a two-horned animal; but the exact reference of the word so rendered (reem) is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo; others, the white antelope, called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes the Bos primigenius (“primitive ox”), which is now extinct all over the world. This was the auerochs of the Germans, and the urus described by Caesar (Gal. Bel., vi.28) as inhabiting the Hercynian forest. The word thus rendered has been found in an Assyrian inscription written over the wild ox or bison, which some also suppose to be the animal intended (comp. Deut. 33:17; Ps. 22:21; 29:6; 92:10). 5
> *The LXX--Septuagint*
> The LXX (The Greek translation of the Old Testament done around 250 B.C.) says of Job 39:9, βουλήσεται δέ σοι *μονόκερως* δουλεῦσαι ἢ κοιμηθῆναι ἐπὶ φάτνης σου. The Greek word *μονόκερως* _monokeros_ is what the Hebrews tranlsated the Hebrew word רְאֵם _reym_ into. It is an unfortunate rendering. It literally means "one horn," and this is why the KJV rendered it as unicorn since it was using the LXX and not the original Hebrew here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People like to pretend that there were no Hebrew scholars in hand to assist with the development of the kjv. History know-nothings actually believe that the best educated rulers of the past were as retarded as they are.
Click to expand...


Well as a non-believer, it certainly isn't my field of expertise.  However, I do find the subject interesting.  Do you think the writers actually /meant/ Unicorn then?  I guess I always wrote it off as a mis-translation of Rhino's, or maybe referring to a specific animal who just happened to have one horn, something like that.  I suppose I'd been under the impression that it was believed that some story teller/writer/movie maker who in a sense brought the whole unicorn thing "to the public" so to speak; some story/book/movie in more "modern" times that had basically made up that the reason unicorns don't exist is because they were too lazy (or maybe it was vain I can't remember) to get on the ark, rather than anything actually found in the bible or believed by anyone of faith. ~shrug~


----------



## EverCurious

sakinago said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
> 
> 
> 
> Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law.   And abortion is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But so was jim crow, slavery, eminent domain (still is), those were all laws and policy, does not make them right. And right to life is in the constitution, which was created from religious dogma saying that god gives us the right to choose, speak, defend ourselves, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution defines that life begins at viability, at minimum 21 weeks, as per Roe vs Wade and many other courts of the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't, roe v wade was about it not being fair that you could get abortions in some states but not in others, much like the gay marriage ruling. The constitution at one point also said blacks only counted as 3/5ths
Click to expand...


I never said it couldn't be changed, however, it remains that those who define what 'life' is/when it begins according to constitutional law, say it starts at viability.  If one wants to stop abortion fully, then it is going to take a constitutional amendment, or at a bare minimum, overturning Roe vs Wade's specific determination that the state has no "compelling reason" to intervene in a woman's right to privacy (which includes abortion) prior to the end of the first trimester.


----------



## aris2chat

WinterBorn said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
Click to expand...


It should not be an either or, but how much would it cost the tax payer to care for the pregnant mother through her pregnancy?  who much to raise the child in the system?  How many of those in the system will unfortunately commit a crime in their lifetime?  How much to process them through the legal process and jail them?  How many millions of children and infants in the world need homes right now?  Do you expect even a tenth of them to actually find homes?  And the rest?

Do you really understand the support system helping would be mothers through their pregnancy just to give up the children?  And if they actually kept the child?  Where is the moral and financial support for them?  It is a highly insufficient, but you expect taxpayers to be more concerned with a life not yet viable over that of those struggling right now?  What of the suffering of the woman that give up a child even for the best reasons?  It is easier to loose a child than to know there is one out there that has to be given to someone else or that exists in a failing system.

If girls/women had better education and more access to birth control option the need for abortions might be reduced but never be eliminated.  Force men to be the ones responsible for not producing pregnancies till both parents are fully ready for the commitment.

Put an end to all abuse and suffering of the living and ever other social problem.  Don't interfere with a woman's right over her body.


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  It is her choice and no one else?  Are you POSITIVE about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already.  Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights *but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
Click to expand...


If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?  

There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  It is her choice and no one else?  Are you POSITIVE about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already.  Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights *but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
Click to expand...

What a stupid argument. Who decides a child should be killed, rather than risk the chance of potential unhappiness? And there IS a shortage of babies available for adoption. It it the obligation of a mother, no matter what development stage her child is at, to protect that child until such time as she can safely transfer the protection of the child to someone else. You have no right...in theory or as a mother, to terminate the life of any other human....even if you find that duty a nuisance.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will ask you what I have asked others.   What laws did PP break?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should not be an either or, but how much would it cost the tax payer to care for the pregnant mother through her pregnancy?  who much to raise the child in the system?  How many of those in the system will unfortunately commit a crime in their lifetime?  How much to process them through the legal process and jail them?  How many millions of children and infants in the world need homes right now?  Do you expect even a tenth of them to actually find homes?  And the rest?
> 
> Do you really understand the support system helping would be mothers through their pregnancy just to give up the children?  And if they actually kept the child?  Where is the moral and financial support for them?  It is a highly insufficient, but you expect taxpayers to be more concerned with a life not yet viable over that of those struggling right now?  What of the suffering of the woman that give up a child even for the best reasons?  It is easier to loose a child than to know there is one out there that has to be given to someone else or that exists in a failing system.
> 
> If girls/women had better education and more access to birth control option the need for abortions might be reduced but never be eliminated.  Force men to be the ones responsible for not producing pregnancies till both parents are fully ready for the commitment.
> 
> Put an end to all abuse and suffering of the living and ever other social problem.  Don't interfere with a woman's right over her body.
Click to expand...

Another series of lies to justify the murder of the vulnerable. Nazis also sold the murder of defenseless ppl based on their consideration as a burden. You baby killing pigs are disgusting.


----------



## koshergrl

PS...killing babies and exploiting women doesn't reduce the incidence of violence. It increases it. Neither does abortion result in fewer abortions...these are idiotic lies told by ppl to justify the slaughter of the vulnerable and defenseless.


----------



## EverCurious

It's not just about the woman's convenience, that's just bullshit you think supports your side.  There is no /easy/ answer here.  Being pro-life or pro-choice isn't the be all and end all.

There is an /extremely/ large connection between child abuse and unwanted pregnancy.  Maybe said mother knows that she cannot properly care for a(nother) child at that point in her life, who are you to dictate that decision?  And I realize ya'll want to push for adoption as the alternative, but adoption is just as fraught with child abuse as unwanted children, and again, who are you to dictate that a woman has no other choice but to keep a child she wants or put them up for adoption?

Why do you feel that /your/ opinion about the rights of the "baby" are more important than the "mothers" opinion about the rights of the "baby"?  You would label her a "murderer" because it suits your cause, but the "mother" doesn't see herself as a murderer, she see's herself as making a choice that is in the best interest for not only herself, but that "baby" as well.  I don't think /most/ people come into a decision like this flippantly like you want to portray, I suspect most spend a good amount of time thinking about it both before and after - no matter how much you pro-lifer's want to paint them as "selfish inhuman murderers."  

I don't believe life starts at conception, I don't believe it begins until the brain is formed (which is actually /before/ the end of the first trimester) - thus it is not murder in my eyes, even if it is in yours, /your/ opinion about how /I/ feel and believe is frankly irrelevant.  Welcome to America.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should not be an either or, but how much would it cost the tax payer to care for the pregnant mother through her pregnancy?  who much to raise the child in the system?  How many of those in the system will unfortunately commit a crime in their lifetime?  How much to process them through the legal process and jail them?  How many millions of children and infants in the world need homes right now?  Do you expect even a tenth of them to actually find homes?  And the rest?
> 
> Do you really understand the support system helping would be mothers through their pregnancy just to give up the children?  And if they actually kept the child?  Where is the moral and financial support for them?  It is a highly insufficient, but you expect taxpayers to be more concerned with a life not yet viable over that of those struggling right now?  What of the suffering of the woman that give up a child even for the best reasons?  It is easier to loose a child than to know there is one out there that has to be given to someone else or that exists in a failing system.
> 
> If girls/women had better education and more access to birth control option the need for abortions might be reduced but never be eliminated.  Force men to be the ones responsible for not producing pregnancies till both parents are fully ready for the commitment.
> 
> Put an end to all abuse and suffering of the living and ever other social problem.  Don't interfere with a woman's right over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another series of lies to justify the murder of the vulnerable. Nazis also sold the murder of defenseless ppl based on their consideration as a burden. You baby killing pigs are disgusting.
Click to expand...


a million children are adopted in the US each year while more than 150+ million are out there with no homes or a proper system to care for them

and you having conniptions over half a million abortions?  So should women have to go oversea or to mexico rather than have the safety and choice in their own state?  What control will you impose of women that go to other countries?  How are you going to  prevent the pregnancies in the first place?   It is not enough that so many american's go elsewhere to adopt but you would have them do the same for abortions?  What next, for surgery or to deny medical treatment and a choice to end their lives with dignity?  What part of a persons life is beyond being legislated or controlled by those who have no direct right to even voice an opinion?


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  It is her choice and no one else?  Are you POSITIVE about that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already.  Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights *but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a stupid argument. Who decides a child should be killed, rather than risk the chance of potential unhappiness? And there IS a shortage of babies available for adoption. It it the obligation of a mother, no matter what development stage her child is at, to protect that child until such time as she can safely transfer the protection of the child to someone else. You have no right...in theory or as a mother, to terminate the life of any other human....even if you find that duty a nuisance.
Click to expand...

If the child is not yet born, the woman carrying it can decide. It's her body feeding it and you cannot force her to do so against her will.


----------



## koshergrl

Those ones that are in the system aren't babies. People don't adopt them because they have physical and psychological problems, and unhinged relatives, and state oversight. Aborting the viable infants of 18 year old prostitutes and slaves does not make those kids cease to exist. Meanwhile, we have a booming black market for babies because idiots like you coerce women into killing their babies to fund the abortion industry.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this will help you...then again!
> 
> Sale of baby body parts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should not be an either or, but how much would it cost the tax payer to care for the pregnant mother through her pregnancy?  who much to raise the child in the system?  How many of those in the system will unfortunately commit a crime in their lifetime?  How much to process them through the legal process and jail them?  How many millions of children and infants in the world need homes right now?  Do you expect even a tenth of them to actually find homes?  And the rest?
> 
> Do you really understand the support system helping would be mothers through their pregnancy just to give up the children?  And if they actually kept the child?  Where is the moral and financial support for them?  It is a highly insufficient, but you expect taxpayers to be more concerned with a life not yet viable over that of those struggling right now?  What of the suffering of the woman that give up a child even for the best reasons?  It is easier to loose a child than to know there is one out there that has to be given to someone else or that exists in a failing system.
> 
> If girls/women had better education and more access to birth control option the need for abortions might be reduced but never be eliminated.  Force men to be the ones responsible for not producing pregnancies till both parents are fully ready for the commitment.
> 
> Put an end to all abuse and suffering of the living and ever other social problem.  Don't interfere with a woman's right over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another series of lies to justify the murder of the vulnerable. Nazis also sold the murder of defenseless ppl based on their consideration as a burden. You baby killing pigs are disgusting.
Click to expand...


no this is killing baby pigs




A woman has the right to choose what happens to be body..........not you or outsiders
You choose for your body, not everyone else's body


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lucrative??   LMAO!!   At $30 to $100 each?    I have already posted statements from 3 experts in the field who say the amount charged will barely cover the costs.  Not only did PP not make a profit, they may have lost money.
> 
> 
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should not be an either or, but how much would it cost the tax payer to care for the pregnant mother through her pregnancy?  who much to raise the child in the system?  How many of those in the system will unfortunately commit a crime in their lifetime?  How much to process them through the legal process and jail them?  How many millions of children and infants in the world need homes right now?  Do you expect even a tenth of them to actually find homes?  And the rest?
> 
> Do you really understand the support system helping would be mothers through their pregnancy just to give up the children?  And if they actually kept the child?  Where is the moral and financial support for them?  It is a highly insufficient, but you expect taxpayers to be more concerned with a life not yet viable over that of those struggling right now?  What of the suffering of the woman that give up a child even for the best reasons?  It is easier to loose a child than to know there is one out there that has to be given to someone else or that exists in a failing system.
> 
> If girls/women had better education and more access to birth control option the need for abortions might be reduced but never be eliminated.  Force men to be the ones responsible for not producing pregnancies till both parents are fully ready for the commitment.
> 
> Put an end to all abuse and suffering of the living and ever other social problem.  Don't interfere with a woman's right over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another series of lies to justify the murder of the vulnerable. Nazis also sold the murder of defenseless ppl based on their consideration as a burden. You baby killing pigs are disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no this is killing baby pigs
> View attachment 46452
> 
> A woman has the right to choose what happens to be body..........not you or outsiders
> You choose for your body, not everyone else's body
Click to expand...

Try to kill a child in front of me and see what happens. I choose to defend the helpless, vulnerable and innocent from those who seek to hurt them. If their parents try to hurt them, I will choose to protect them from their parents.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should not be an either or, but how much would it cost the tax payer to care for the pregnant mother through her pregnancy?  who much to raise the child in the system?  How many of those in the system will unfortunately commit a crime in their lifetime?  How much to process them through the legal process and jail them?  How many millions of children and infants in the world need homes right now?  Do you expect even a tenth of them to actually find homes?  And the rest?
> 
> Do you really understand the support system helping would be mothers through their pregnancy just to give up the children?  And if they actually kept the child?  Where is the moral and financial support for them?  It is a highly insufficient, but you expect taxpayers to be more concerned with a life not yet viable over that of those struggling right now?  What of the suffering of the woman that give up a child even for the best reasons?  It is easier to loose a child than to know there is one out there that has to be given to someone else or that exists in a failing system.
> 
> If girls/women had better education and more access to birth control option the need for abortions might be reduced but never be eliminated.  Force men to be the ones responsible for not producing pregnancies till both parents are fully ready for the commitment.
> 
> Put an end to all abuse and suffering of the living and ever other social problem.  Don't interfere with a woman's right over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another series of lies to justify the murder of the vulnerable. Nazis also sold the murder of defenseless ppl based on their consideration as a burden. You baby killing pigs are disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no this is killing baby pigs
> View attachment 46452
> 
> A woman has the right to choose what happens to be body..........not you or outsiders
> You choose for your body, not everyone else's body
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to kill a child in front of me and see what happens. I choose to defend the helpless, vulnerable and innocent from those who seek to hurt them. If their parents try to hurt them, I will choose to protect them from their parents.
Click to expand...


Parents choose to not allow medical treatment or vaccines in the name of religion.   Parents act out of lack of education and just plain stupidity sometimes.
Save the lives of all those who are alive that want your help but stay out of dictating to a woman about what happens to her body.

Care more for the quality of lives and not the unwanted lives not yet able to live outside a woman's body.

Care for the quality of the woman's life and allow her to decide what is best for her.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should not be an either or, but how much would it cost the tax payer to care for the pregnant mother through her pregnancy?  who much to raise the child in the system?  How many of those in the system will unfortunately commit a crime in their lifetime?  How much to process them through the legal process and jail them?  How many millions of children and infants in the world need homes right now?  Do you expect even a tenth of them to actually find homes?  And the rest?
> 
> Do you really understand the support system helping would be mothers through their pregnancy just to give up the children?  And if they actually kept the child?  Where is the moral and financial support for them?  It is a highly insufficient, but you expect taxpayers to be more concerned with a life not yet viable over that of those struggling right now?  What of the suffering of the woman that give up a child even for the best reasons?  It is easier to loose a child than to know there is one out there that has to be given to someone else or that exists in a failing system.
> 
> If girls/women had better education and more access to birth control option the need for abortions might be reduced but never be eliminated.  Force men to be the ones responsible for not producing pregnancies till both parents are fully ready for the commitment.
> 
> Put an end to all abuse and suffering of the living and ever other social problem.  Don't interfere with a woman's right over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another series of lies to justify the murder of the vulnerable. Nazis also sold the murder of defenseless ppl based on their consideration as a burden. You baby killing pigs are disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no this is killing baby pigs
> View attachment 46452
> 
> A woman has the right to choose what happens to be body..........not you or outsiders
> You choose for your body, not everyone else's body
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to kill a child in front of me and see what happens. I choose to defend the helpless, vulnerable and innocent from those who seek to hurt them. If their parents try to hurt them, I will choose to protect them from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Parents choose to not allow medical treatment or vaccines in the name of religion.   Parents act out of lack of education and just plain stupidity sometimes.
> Save the lives of all those who are alive that want your help but stay out of dictating to a woman about what happens to her body.
> 
> Care more for the quality of lives and not the unwanted lives not yet able to live outside a woman's body.
Click to expand...

Oh look, more baby killing script reading.


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
Click to expand...

So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
Click to expand...

Of course she believes that. If a progressive feels sorry for you, it's automatically a death sentence.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should not be an either or, but how much would it cost the tax payer to care for the pregnant mother through her pregnancy?  who much to raise the child in the system?  How many of those in the system will unfortunately commit a crime in their lifetime?  How much to process them through the legal process and jail them?  How many millions of children and infants in the world need homes right now?  Do you expect even a tenth of them to actually find homes?  And the rest?
> 
> Do you really understand the support system helping would be mothers through their pregnancy just to give up the children?  And if they actually kept the child?  Where is the moral and financial support for them?  It is a highly insufficient, but you expect taxpayers to be more concerned with a life not yet viable over that of those struggling right now?  What of the suffering of the woman that give up a child even for the best reasons?  It is easier to loose a child than to know there is one out there that has to be given to someone else or that exists in a failing system.
> 
> If girls/women had better education and more access to birth control option the need for abortions might be reduced but never be eliminated.  Force men to be the ones responsible for not producing pregnancies till both parents are fully ready for the commitment.
> 
> Put an end to all abuse and suffering of the living and ever other social problem.  Don't interfere with a woman's right over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another series of lies to justify the murder of the vulnerable. Nazis also sold the murder of defenseless ppl based on their consideration as a burden. You baby killing pigs are disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no this is killing baby pigs
> View attachment 46452
> 
> A woman has the right to choose what happens to be body..........not you or outsiders
> You choose for your body, not everyone else's body
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to kill a child in front of me and see what happens. I choose to defend the helpless, vulnerable and innocent from those who seek to hurt them. If their parents try to hurt them, I will choose to protect them from their parents.
Click to expand...


You make choices every day that have the potential to hurt people.  Every purchase, every trip out of the house, every choice of chemicals and cleaners, every type of food you make.  It is hard to live on this earth and not have some harmful effect on others.  Who protects those people from you?


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
Click to expand...


She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should not be an either or, but how much would it cost the tax payer to care for the pregnant mother through her pregnancy?  who much to raise the child in the system?  How many of those in the system will unfortunately commit a crime in their lifetime?  How much to process them through the legal process and jail them?  How many millions of children and infants in the world need homes right now?  Do you expect even a tenth of them to actually find homes?  And the rest?
> 
> Do you really understand the support system helping would be mothers through their pregnancy just to give up the children?  And if they actually kept the child?  Where is the moral and financial support for them?  It is a highly insufficient, but you expect taxpayers to be more concerned with a life not yet viable over that of those struggling right now?  What of the suffering of the woman that give up a child even for the best reasons?  It is easier to loose a child than to know there is one out there that has to be given to someone else or that exists in a failing system.
> 
> If girls/women had better education and more access to birth control option the need for abortions might be reduced but never be eliminated.  Force men to be the ones responsible for not producing pregnancies till both parents are fully ready for the commitment.
> 
> Put an end to all abuse and suffering of the living and ever other social problem.  Don't interfere with a woman's right over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another series of lies to justify the murder of the vulnerable. Nazis also sold the murder of defenseless ppl based on their consideration as a burden. You baby killing pigs are disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no this is killing baby pigs
> View attachment 46452
> 
> A woman has the right to choose what happens to be body..........not you or outsiders
> You choose for your body, not everyone else's body
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to kill a child in front of me and see what happens. I choose to defend the helpless, vulnerable and innocent from those who seek to hurt them. If their parents try to hurt them, I will choose to protect them from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make choices every day that have the potential to hurt people.  Every purchase, every trip out of the house, every choice of chemicals and cleaners, every type of food you make.  It is hard to live on this earth and not have some harmful effect on others.  Who protects those people from you?
Click to expand...

They don't need protection from me.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
Click to expand...

Yes, she was alive. That's why they had to withhold food and water to kill her. Like I said...weak helpless people have shortened lifespans when a progressive notices them.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should not be an either or, but how much would it cost the tax payer to care for the pregnant mother through her pregnancy?  who much to raise the child in the system?  How many of those in the system will unfortunately commit a crime in their lifetime?  How much to process them through the legal process and jail them?  How many millions of children and infants in the world need homes right now?  Do you expect even a tenth of them to actually find homes?  And the rest?
> 
> Do you really understand the support system helping would be mothers through their pregnancy just to give up the children?  And if they actually kept the child?  Where is the moral and financial support for them?  It is a highly insufficient, but you expect taxpayers to be more concerned with a life not yet viable over that of those struggling right now?  What of the suffering of the woman that give up a child even for the best reasons?  It is easier to loose a child than to know there is one out there that has to be given to someone else or that exists in a failing system.
> 
> If girls/women had better education and more access to birth control option the need for abortions might be reduced but never be eliminated.  Force men to be the ones responsible for not producing pregnancies till both parents are fully ready for the commitment.
> 
> Put an end to all abuse and suffering of the living and ever other social problem.  Don't interfere with a woman's right over her body.
> 
> 
> 
> Another series of lies to justify the murder of the vulnerable. Nazis also sold the murder of defenseless ppl based on their consideration as a burden. You baby killing pigs are disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no this is killing baby pigs
> View attachment 46452
> 
> A woman has the right to choose what happens to be body..........not you or outsiders
> You choose for your body, not everyone else's body
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to kill a child in front of me and see what happens. I choose to defend the helpless, vulnerable and innocent from those who seek to hurt them. If their parents try to hurt them, I will choose to protect them from their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make choices every day that have the potential to hurt people.  Every purchase, every trip out of the house, every choice of chemicals and cleaners, every type of food you make.  It is hard to live on this earth and not have some harmful effect on others.  Who protects those people from you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't need protection from me.
Click to expand...


Do you protect christians from being massacred?  Do you protect the millions of refugees in the world?   Do you prevent the abuse of children being used in war?   Do you prevent all the starving from death?  Do you prevent all the water from contamination?  Do you prevent all fossil fuels from being used?  Do you prevent soil erosion?  Do you prevent animals from being killed?  Have you solved poverty or famines?  Have you ended cancer and death?  Are you fighting slavery in the world?

You don't have the right to control a woman's body.  You don't have the right to take that choice away from her.  You have no right to make her carry and give birth to a child she is not ready to care for.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, she was alive. That's why they had to withhold food and water to kill her. Like I said...weak helpless people have shortened lifespans when a progressive notices them.
Click to expand...


Her brain said other wise


----------



## koshergrl

I have the right and the obligation to protect the weak and vulnerable from those who seek to harm and kill them. The human right to life supercedes a woman's non existent right to 'not be told what to do'. I know you think women have the right to kill their children. I know you think PP ghouls have the right to abuse, lie to, damage and kill women under a false banner of choice. I know you think people have the right to coerce and force women to submit to late term abortion, and I know you believe husbands have the right to kill wives who become a burden. You're despicable, and of no consequence. People like me will always number in the majority. Anti social serial killing monsters should not be allowed to walk about free, and we are quickly approaching a time, again, when they will not.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Faun said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> "minimal" fees are negotiable? LMAO
> 
> 
> 
> They can be when you don't know how much the expenses are. She can't even afford a tune up on a Lamborghini, no less purchasing one, making a few dollars on such a transaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, because God knows, PP only butchers a few babies here and there.  It's not like they're doing a ghastly volume business in fetal corpses, or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your strawman aside, the woman from PP in that video intimated she was somewhat removed from the costs of those services. It's highly plausible she was indeed not up to date with the current costs involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiight.  So now your lame argument is that Planned Parenthood is such an inefficient and unprofessional organization that they have people taking meetings about topics they aren't qualified to address?  All the more reason not to give them our tax money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So don't pay your taxes. Then your money won't go to them.
Click to expand...


Wow, your posts are actually getting dumber and more irrelevant exponentially.  At this rate, we're going to have to rewrite the laws of physics.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Faun said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".
> 
> Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.
> 
> 
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, those videos could have shown the president of Planned Parenthood standing on an auction block taking bids and you'd still post the same line.  Your "arguments" are nothing more than mindless partisan kneejerking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of your hyperbole, the videos do not indicate what you claim. Again, they indicate charges to cover costs. The specimens are donated, not sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Squawk!  The memo told me I believe this!  Squawk!  Polly want an abortion!  Squawk!"
> 
> You'd make a better argument if your lips weren't so firmly planted on any liberal ass that presents itself, just FYI.  Your complete abdication of any and all dignity in pursuit of political agenda makes me sad to know that you exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You shouldn't get so frustrated cause you can't prove your delusions. There is no memo. I watched the videos. There is no sale indicated in them; only donations. You can bitch and moan all you want -- that will not make a discussion of a sale magically appear in them.
> 
> But don't let go of your hopes & dreams. There are purportedly more incriminating videos yet to be released. Who knows, maybe you'll get lucky.
Click to expand...


"Not true!  My ability to say it makes it so!"

*yawn*


----------



## Cecilie1200

sakinago said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus loves it when we bomb the Third world ....
> 
> 
> 
> Never said He did. Doesn't excuse abortion. You can't say since someone is sinning over there it's ok for others to sin over here. It's illogical
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except your idea of sin does not mean it is against US law.   And abortion is legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But so was jim crow, slavery, eminent domain (still is), those were all laws and policy, does not make them right. And right to life is in the constitution, which was created from religious dogma saying that god gives us the right to choose, speak, defend ourselves, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The constitution defines that life begins at viability, at minimum 21 weeks, as per Roe vs Wade and many other courts of the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it doesn't, roe v wade was about it not being fair that you could get abortions in some states but not in others, much like the gay marriage ruling. The constitution at one point also said blacks only counted as 3/5ths
Click to expand...


Uh, yeah, toward the Census.  D


aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also.  It's her choice and no one elses.  I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  It is her choice and no one else?  Are you POSITIVE about that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already.  Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights *but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
Click to expand...


Um, the fetus IS living, and although not inhaling and exhaling through the mouth and nose, he also processes oxygen.

It's also funny how someone who most likely proudly believes he/she/it stands on the side of science, you blindly cling to the biologically incorrect belief that the fetus is part of the mother's body.

I'm also laughing at your whole "All abortions must be legal, because 1% of them have to do with hard cases!" line, like I always do.  It must suck so badly to be you.  I'd pity you, except I don't.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, she was alive. That's why they had to withhold food and water to kill her. Like I said...weak helpless people have shortened lifespans when a progressive notices them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her brain said other wise
> 
> View attachment 46455
Click to expand...

Ah, the old 'only things I don't want to kill are alive' definition of life. So reminiscent of bygone ages, when those marked for death were labeled as less than human, therefore not granted human rights.


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cover what costs? They receive OVER ONE HALF BILLION a year from the Fed! and they do over 330,000 abortions a year...even figuring LOW at $30 a shot, that comes to over $1 million! Your so called EXPERTS have a VESTED INTEREST in PP.... how stupid of you to even rely on this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the federal money is allowed to be used for abortions.   The 400k PAP smears, 500k breast exams, and over 1 million STD testings and treatments take care of the federal money.
> 
> Here are 3 experts in the field discussing the money charged by PP for the donated tissues:
> 
> "We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit.Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that* “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price*.” She continued in an email:
> 
> Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high*. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute’s Office ofBiorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that “*$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue.” In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have “no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit*.”
> 
> Carolyn Compton, the chief medical and science officer of Arizona State University’s National Biomarkers Development Alliance and a former director of biorepositories and biospecimen research at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that this was “a modest price tag for cost recovery.” Compton told us in an email: ” *‘Profit’ is out of the question, in my mind. I would say that whoever opined about ‘profit’ knows very little about the effort and expense involved in providing human biospecimens for research purposes.”
> *
> from:  Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should not be an either or, but how much would it cost the tax payer to care for the pregnant mother through her pregnancy?  who much to raise the child in the system?  How many of those in the system will unfortunately commit a crime in their lifetime?  How much to process them through the legal process and jail them?  How many millions of children and infants in the world need homes right now?  Do you expect even a tenth of them to actually find homes?  And the rest?
> 
> Do you really understand the support system helping would be mothers through their pregnancy just to give up the children?  And if they actually kept the child?  Where is the moral and financial support for them?  It is a highly insufficient, but you expect taxpayers to be more concerned with a life not yet viable over that of those struggling right now?  What of the suffering of the woman that give up a child even for the best reasons?  It is easier to loose a child than to know there is one out there that has to be given to someone else or that exists in a failing system.
> 
> If girls/women had better education and more access to birth control option the need for abortions might be reduced but never be eliminated.  Force men to be the ones responsible for not producing pregnancies till both parents are fully ready for the commitment.
> 
> Put an end to all abuse and suffering of the living and ever other social problem.  Don't interfere with a woman's right over her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another series of lies to justify the murder of the vulnerable. Nazis also sold the murder of defenseless ppl based on their consideration as a burden. You baby killing pigs are disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no this is killing baby pigs
> View attachment 46452
> 
> A woman has the right to choose what happens to be body..........not you or outsiders
> You choose for your body, not everyone else's body
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to kill a child in front of me and see what happens. I choose to defend the helpless, vulnerable and innocent from those who seek to hurt them. If their parents try to hurt them, I will choose to protect them from their parents.
Click to expand...

Then why are you posting here and not using your super hero powers at abortion clinics?


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
Click to expand...

Yes, he did. That's why it was removed.


----------



## Faun

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can be when you don't know how much the expenses are. She can't even afford a tune up on a Lamborghini, no less purchasing one, making a few dollars on such a transaction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because God knows, PP only butchers a few babies here and there.  It's not like they're doing a ghastly volume business in fetal corpses, or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your strawman aside, the woman from PP in that video intimated she was somewhat removed from the costs of those services. It's highly plausible she was indeed not up to date with the current costs involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiight.  So now your lame argument is that Planned Parenthood is such an inefficient and unprofessional organization that they have people taking meetings about topics they aren't qualified to address?  All the more reason not to give them our tax money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So don't pay your taxes. Then your money won't go to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, your posts are actually getting dumber and more irrelevant exponentially.  At this rate, we're going to have to rewrite the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

And yet, despite your inane rhetoric, the videos still do not depict the sale of embryonic tissue. Carry on.


----------



## Faun

Cecilie1200 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, those videos could have shown the president of Planned Parenthood standing on an auction block taking bids and you'd still post the same line.  Your "arguments" are nothing more than mindless partisan kneejerking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Regardless of your hyperbole, the videos do not indicate what you claim. Again, they indicate charges to cover costs. The specimens are donated, not sold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Squawk!  The memo told me I believe this!  Squawk!  Polly want an abortion!  Squawk!"
> 
> You'd make a better argument if your lips weren't so firmly planted on any liberal ass that presents itself, just FYI.  Your complete abdication of any and all dignity in pursuit of political agenda makes me sad to know that you exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You shouldn't get so frustrated cause you can't prove your delusions. There is no memo. I watched the videos. There is no sale indicated in them; only donations. You can bitch and moan all you want -- that will not make a discussion of a sale magically appear in them.
> 
> But don't let go of your hopes & dreams. There are purportedly more incriminating videos yet to be released. Who knows, maybe you'll get lucky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Not true!  My ability to say it makes it so!"
> 
> *yawn*
Click to expand...

Your ability to say it does no such thing. Hell, you have the ability to say you saw flying pigs in the video. Your need to say it only serves to reveal you suffer from advanced delusionary schizophrenia with involuntary narcissistic rage.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> I have the right and the obligation to protect the weak and vulnerable from those who seek to harm and kill them. The human right to life supercedes a woman's non existent right to 'not be told what to do'. I know you think women have the right to kill their children. I know you think PP ghouls have the right to abuse, lie to, damage and kill women under a false banner of choice. I know you think people have the right to coerce and force women to submit to late term abortion, and I know you believe husbands have the right to kill wives who become a burden. You're despicable, and of no consequence. People like me will always number in the majority. Anti social serial killing monsters should not be allowed to walk about free, and we are quickly approaching a time, again, when they will not.



and yet you really do not know anything.  
There are many that are weak and vulnerable but you are not helping them by standing in the way of a woman's right.
There are many real monsters that are walking free, many real killers, many real victims but you are consumed with arguing over denying a woman her right to choose what happens to her body.  
You are not a majority.  63 percent are still in support of planned parenthood.
If the fetus cannot survive outside of a woman's body, the fetus does not superseded the woman's right to her own body.  If it was a matter of her needing cancer treatment, would you tell her she has to carry the fetus instead of getting chemotherapy?  Would you tell her she does not have the right to decide on her life over an unborn that will not have a mother?  Where does your interference in her life end?   Will you force her to marry?  Force her to quit her school, her job, her privacy, her future because you want her to have a child?  Will you tell her she has no rights?  Who else will you deny rights to?


----------



## aris2chat

the bill attempting to defund PP failed.  Trying to shut down PP will result in more abortions and more unwanted pregnancies, not fewer


----------



## JFish123

aris2chat said:


> the bill attempting to defund PP failed.  Trying to shut down PP will result in more abortions and more unwanted pregnancies, not fewer


Lol there are other providers and far more ethical ones than PP lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JoeB131

koshergrl said:


> People like to pretend that there were no Hebrew scholars in hand to assist with the development of the kjv. History know-nothings actually believe that the best educated rulers of the past were as retarded as they are.



The best educated rulers of the past thought that bathing caused diseases and colds were caused by evil spirits and witches were a real thing.  

Point was- there were no unicorns, even though the Bible mentions them.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Stephanie said:


> THIS is what every state needs to do folks. Contact your STATE Representatives. THIS lowlife CONGRESS isn't going to do as you want. or start blowing the phones up for these baby killing supporters in Congress
> 
> SNIP:
> 
> *Jindal: We've Canceled Medicaid Contract with Planned Parenthood*
> * "It has become clear that this is not an organization that is worthy of receiving public assistance from the state." *
> 8.4.2015
> Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal issuedpress release Monday announcing that the state is terminating its Medicaid contract with the nation's leading abortion provider Planned Parenthood.
> 
> The announcement follows the release of four undercover expose videos (several more will likely be posted in the coming weeks) showing Planned Parenthood's high-level medical personnel negotiating prices for the sale of fetal body parts and explaining how their doctors alter the abortion procedure to better procure the "tissue," both potentially illegal activities.
> 
> After Jindal ordered the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals to investigate the embattled abortion provider's practices, DHH has now informed Planned Parenthood that it would know longer contract with them for Medicaid services.
> 
> A statement from Gov. Jindal's office Monday explained the state's decision to cancel its partnership with the organization, citing its legal right to "cancel the contract at will after providing written notice" and underscoring that cancellation of the contract "does not jeopardize" providing services to women across the state as Louisiana has contracts with several women's health providers.
> 
> Here's the complete press release:
> 
> all of it here:
> Jindal We ve Canceled Medicaid Contract with Planned Parenthood Truth Revolt



This is what Planned Parenthood does......why do you hate women?  *Stephanie?*



> *What services does Planned Parenthood offer?   Planned Parenthood Fast facts and numbers Health - Home
> 
> According to organization, these are how their services break down:
> 
> Abortion
> 
> Planned Parenthood says 3% of the services it provides are abortions. 327,653 abortions were performed in 2013, according to Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Sexual Education
> 
> Planned Parenthood says it provides sex education to 1.5 million people each year
> 
> Pregnancy Prevention and Birth Control
> 
> Planned Parenthood says it prevents an estimated 516,000 unintended pregnancies per year Contraception accounted for 34% of the services it provided, according to a GAO report released in March that looks at data from 2010 through 2012.
> 
> Further breakdown:
> 
> reversible contraception patients (2.1 million) emergency contraception kits (1.4 million) vasectomies (4,166) female sterilization procedures (822)
> 
> Pregnancy tests -- 1.1 million tests done in 2013
> 
> Prenatal care -- provided to 18,684 people in 2013
> 
> Sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment
> 
> Planned Parenthood say this accounts for 42% of the services provided. (The GAO calculates 41% in 2012 by affiliates) 4.5 million tests and treatments provided in 2013. This represents the largest proportion of medical services provided
> 
> Pap smears (cervical cancer screening) -- 400,000 per year
> 
> Breast exams -- 500,000 per year
> 
> Research -- Planned Parenthood says it participated in more than 70 research projects, according to its 2013-2014 annual report.
> 
> According to the Guttmacher Institute, publicly funded family planning in 2013 helped women avoid 2 million unintended pregnancies, by providing millions of women with access to contraceptive services they want and need. Without these services, the rates of unintended pregnancy, they say, unplanned birth and abortion would be 60% higher.*


----------



## JFish123

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> the bill attempting to defund PP failed.  Trying to shut down PP will result in more abortions and more unwanted pregnancies, not fewer


Nonsense. Stop spouting foolishness to justify murder and abuse. Nobody believes it.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have the right and the obligation to protect the weak and vulnerable from those who seek to harm and kill them. The human right to life supercedes a woman's non existent right to 'not be told what to do'. I know you think women have the right to kill their children. I know you think PP ghouls have the right to abuse, lie to, damage and kill women under a false banner of choice. I know you think people have the right to coerce and force women to submit to late term abortion, and I know you believe husbands have the right to kill wives who become a burden. You're despicable, and of no consequence. People like me will always number in the majority. Anti social serial killing monsters should not be allowed to walk about free, and we are quickly approaching a time, again, when they will not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you really do not know anything.
> There are many that are weak and vulnerable but you are not helping them by standing in the way of a woman's right.
> There are many real monsters that are walking free, many real killers, many real victims but you are consumed with arguing over denying a woman her right to choose what happens to her body.
> You are not a majority.  63 percent are still in support of planned parenthood.
> If the fetus cannot survive outside of a woman's body, the fetus does not superseded the woman's right to her own body.  If it was a matter of her needing cancer treatment, would you tell her she has to carry the fetus instead of getting chemotherapy?  Would you tell her she does not have the right to decide on her life over an unborn that will not have a mother?  Where does your interference in her life end?   Will you force her to marry?  Force her to quit her school, her job, her privacy, her future because you want her to have a child?  Will you tell her she has no rights?  Who else will you deny rights to?
Click to expand...

More nonsense. Hysterical jabbering of multiple, outlandish lies perpetuated by ppl who profit off the systematic abuse of women and murder of children.


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is what every state needs to do folks. Contact your STATE Representatives. THIS lowlife CONGRESS isn't going to do as you want. or start blowing the phones up for these baby killing supporters in Congress
> 
> SNIP:
> 
> *Jindal: We've Canceled Medicaid Contract with Planned Parenthood*
> * "It has become clear that this is not an organization that is worthy of receiving public assistance from the state." *
> 8.4.2015
> Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal issuedpress release Monday announcing that the state is terminating its Medicaid contract with the nation's leading abortion provider Planned Parenthood.
> 
> The announcement follows the release of four undercover expose videos (several more will likely be posted in the coming weeks) showing Planned Parenthood's high-level medical personnel negotiating prices for the sale of fetal body parts and explaining how their doctors alter the abortion procedure to better procure the "tissue," both potentially illegal activities.
> 
> After Jindal ordered the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals to investigate the embattled abortion provider's practices, DHH has now informed Planned Parenthood that it would know longer contract with them for Medicaid services.
> 
> A statement from Gov. Jindal's office Monday explained the state's decision to cancel its partnership with the organization, citing its legal right to "cancel the contract at will after providing written notice" and underscoring that cancellation of the contract "does not jeopardize" providing services to women across the state as Louisiana has contracts with several women's health providers.
> 
> Here's the complete press release:
> 
> all of it here:
> Jindal We ve Canceled Medicaid Contract with Planned Parenthood Truth Revolt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what Planned Parenthood does......why do you hate women?  *Stephanie?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What services does Planned Parenthood offer?   Planned Parenthood Fast facts and numbers Health - Home
> 
> According to organization, these are how their services break down:
> 
> Abortion
> 
> Planned Parenthood says 3% of the services it provides are abortions. 327,653 abortions were performed in 2013, according to Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Sexual Education
> 
> Planned Parenthood says it provides sex education to 1.5 million people each year
> 
> Pregnancy Prevention and Birth Control
> 
> Planned Parenthood says it prevents an estimated 516,000 unintended pregnancies per year Contraception accounted for 34% of the services it provided, according to a GAO report released in March that looks at data from 2010 through 2012.
> 
> Further breakdown:
> 
> reversible contraception patients (2.1 million) emergency contraception kits (1.4 million) vasectomies (4,166) female sterilization procedures (822)
> 
> Pregnancy tests -- 1.1 million tests done in 2013
> 
> Prenatal care -- provided to 18,684 people in 2013
> 
> Sexually transmitted disease screening and treatment
> 
> Planned Parenthood say this accounts for 42% of the services provided. (The GAO calculates 41% in 2012 by affiliates) 4.5 million tests and treatments provided in 2013. This represents the largest proportion of medical services provided
> 
> Pap smears (cervical cancer screening) -- 400,000 per year
> 
> Breast exams -- 500,000 per year
> 
> Research -- Planned Parenthood says it participated in more than 70 research projects, according to its 2013-2014 annual report.
> 
> According to the Guttmacher Institute, publicly funded family planning in 2013 helped women avoid 2 million unintended pregnancies, by providing millions of women with access to contraceptive services they want and need. Without these services, the rates of unintended pregnancy, they say, unplanned birth and abortion would be 60% higher.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Planned Parenthood facilitates, hides, and participates in the abuse and murder of women and their children for profit.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

koshergrl said:


> More nonsense. Hysterical jabbering of multiple, outlandish lies perpetuated by ppl who profit off the systematic abuse of women and murder of children.



Women voluntarily used the services of Planned Parenthood.....No one uses any services from "*fetus Fetish Gangsters"*

*These crazy ass devious dishonest gangsters will stop at nothing to get their way .... "Pounding their bibles and relying on purely misleading and highly edited junk videos, far right anti-abortion activists, their elected congressional sycophants and whatever billionaires responsible for funding the series of sneak-videos, came up on the short end of a test vote to pull around $500 million from PPFA clinics throughout the nation, and by extension, the world."*


----------



## koshergrl

Planned parenthood partners with abusers, pimps, and traffickers to generate a supply of saleable dead babies.


----------



## sealybobo

Manonthestreet said:


> I thought it was the evil Jews doing this...not good libs


When a child is born without hands and you give that child someone else's hands, someone who has died, do you say you're trafficking body parts?

When I think of trafficking body parts I think of stealing somebody's kidneys and selling it on the black market. These are just dead embryo that need to be experimented on. Wayne I'm sorry Gordie Howe almost died and had to be flown to California to receive stem cell research treatment that is illegal in Michigan because of religious reasons. Feel free to traffic those body parts all you want


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

koshergrl said:


> Planned parenthood partners with abusers, pimps, and traffickers to generate a supply of saleable dead babies.


----------



## Stephanie

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I have addressed it already.
> 
> I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers?  The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
Click to expand...


whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus. you people are sick in the head and they should use all the people who supports and works at PP as specimens for body parts. The brains won't be usable so they toss them in the garbage...... We'll refer to you as a fetus when we write about how heroic you were


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

One can participate in "body parts trafficking" by donating organs..
*organdonor.gov | Organ Donation: The Process*

The phrase _*"body parts trafficking"*_ is meant to elicit an affective [emotional] response as compared to a cognitive or thought out response...its meant to elicit images of shady folks in long bloody coats furtively cutting parts off people to make money...its cheap rhetorical  theatrics...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Stephanie said:


> whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus.



Yes women say "I am* going to* have a baby" not I have a baby ...people do not hold a fertilized chicken egg in hand and say Look a chicken 

why would someone say we are going to have a fetus at the end of gestation  when they are going to have a baby...?


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
Click to expand...

No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

The premise of this thread is flawed...Planned Parenthood has not been "caught trafficking body parts"..*.that is simply "an untruth"*
The Center for Medical Progress has released four videos so far* and not one contains a shred of evidence proving the sale of fetal tissue.* Every video documents evidence that fetal tissue from abortions are being donated to medical research........


----------



## jon_berzerk

actually there are 5 videos out now


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*All videos are variations on agit propaganda*...its like when Iraqi soldiers had supposedly thrown Kuwaiti babies off Incubators to steal the incubators....its not real...
There is no "barbarism"  shown in the Planned Parenthood video...these are *edited bits of videos put together to create an impression...that Impression is a product of propaganda* ..it is an emotive reaction that was calculated to occur by the propagandist...they use that visceral reaction to put a stop to cognition about the issue and hurl any opposition to the propagandist 's purposes into a label of Immorality..*.its classic agit prop *


----------



## Stephanie

jon_berzerk said:


> actually there are 5 videos out now



I posted the fifth one on here and I noticed it has been ignored.


----------



## Defiant1

jon_berzerk said:


> actually there are 5 videos out now




And 7 more to come.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Stephanie said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually there are 5 videos out now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the fifth one on here and I noticed it has been ignored.
Click to expand...


what else can they do 

it isnt like you are going to change the minds of any of the hardcore leftist cranks on this board 

ya need to send the message to the common folk

who are just unaware of how evil PP is


----------



## Stephanie

jon_berzerk said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually there are 5 videos out now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the fifth one on here and I noticed it has been ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what else can they do
> 
> it isnt like you are going to change the minds of any of the hardcore leftist cranks on this board
> 
> ya need to send the message to the common folk
> 
> who are just unaware of how evil PP is
Click to expand...


at least they are out there now. Hopefully more people will be sickened by them and change their minds.  that abortion ISN'T some walk in the park as they try and sell it. and think twice about that LIFE they only  want to  call a "fetus". Is actually YOUR BABY you helped in Conceiving and will now kill through abortion.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Stephanie said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually there are 5 videos out now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the fifth one on here and I noticed it has been ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what else can they do
> 
> it isnt like you are going to change the minds of any of the hardcore leftist cranks on this board
> 
> ya need to send the message to the common folk
> 
> who are just unaware of how evil PP is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> at least they are out there now. Hopefully more people will be sickened by them and change their minds.  that abortion ISN'T some walk in the park as they try and sell it. and think twice about that LIFE they only  want to  call a "fetus". Is actually YOUR BABY you helped in Conceiving and will now kill through abortion.
Click to expand...


they do not even want to call it a fetus 

currently they say the product of conception


----------



## koshergrl

Stephanie said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.
> 
> Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.
> 
> THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act.  Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement.  IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered.  CLEARLY this is not the case.  Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?
> 
> That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions.  I have not seen you actually address that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus. you people are sick in the head and they should use all the people who supports and works at PP as specimens for body parts. The brains won't be usable so they toss them in the garbage...... We'll refer to you as a fetus when we write about how heroic you were
Click to expand...

That's a good idea. Allow them to do unlimited human experimentation...upon each other. They truly are mentally ill and should be locked away from humanity. They are a threat to it, as everybody is beginning to see. Too late, of course. The damage is done.


----------



## Stephanie

koshergrl said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus. you people are sick in the head and they should use all the people who supports and works at PP as specimens for body parts. The brains won't be usable so they toss them in the garbage...... We'll refer to you as a fetus when we write about how heroic you were
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a good idea. Allow them to do unlimited human experimentation...upon each other. They truly are mentally ill and should be locked away from humanity. They are a threat to it, as everybody is beginning to see. Too late, of course. The damage is done.
Click to expand...


I think it's a wonderful idea. and while we are at it. We need to start breeding monkeys again so they be can USED in all this life saving wonder research these abortion loves claims we can't live without. We'll see how that goes over. the same way they did over some LION


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Stephanie said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually there are 5 videos out now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the fifth one on here and I noticed it has been ignored.
Click to expand...

I noticed that my question to you about why you hate women has been ignored......Isn't that right *Stephanie?*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Planned Parenthood’s Title X funding alone prevents about 125,000 abortions a year. That’s not even counting the Medicaid funding, which is 75 percent of Planned Parenthood’s funding. If you don’t like abortion, you want Planned Parenthood to have more money to prevent it, instead of cutting its funding.


----------



## Stephanie

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually there are 5 videos out now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the fifth one on here and I noticed it has been ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that my question to you about why you hate women has been ignored......Isn't that right *Stephanie?*
Click to expand...


I don't answer to STUPID. why do YOU: HATE BABIES/CHILDREN/HUMAN BEINGS?
My guess is: because you are a LIBERAL. you people ONLY crow you care so much about all mankind. we see that is LIE. now run along


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually there are 5 videos out now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the fifth one on here and I noticed it has been ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that my question to you about why you hate women has been ignored......Isn't that right *Stephanie?*
Click to expand...

If I told the nazis to stop killing Jews and undesirables, does that make me a nazi hater??


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Stephanie said:


> I think it's a wonderful idea. and while we are at it. We need to start breeding monkeys again so they be can USED in all this life saving wonder research these abortion loves claims we can't live without. We'll see how that goes over. the same way they did over some LION


*
A woman who chooses abortion is doing that for reasons that have nothing at all to do with research..*.. use fetal tissue from abortions is just using tissue that otherwise would be incinerated...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

As a Matter of Fact

nearly 9 in 10 abortions happen in the first 12 weeks, which means it’s embryos, not fetuses, being removed, and they range from microscopic to about half an ounce in size.* Most abortions resemble little more than a very heavy period.*


----------



## jon_berzerk

indeed 


in the embryo stage all is uncertain

it could become a shoe a door stop a cute puppy 

but certainly not a human baby


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus. you people are sick in the head and they should use all the people who supports and works at PP as specimens for body parts. The brains won't be usable so they toss them in the garbage...... We'll refer to you as a fetus when we write about how heroic you were
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a good idea. Allow them to do unlimited human experimentation...upon each other. They truly are mentally ill and should be locked away from humanity. They are a threat to it, as everybody is beginning to see. Too late, of course. The damage is done.
Click to expand...


No one is talking about human experimentation or experimentation on living beings.  Hyperbole much?  Or just the usual dishonest rhetoric.  If so, I suggest you organize protests against cadever organ and tissue donation.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

sakinago said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually there are 5 videos out now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the fifth one on here and I noticed it has been ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that my question to you about why you hate women has been ignored......Isn't that right *Stephanie?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I told the nazis to stop killing Jews and undesirables, does that make me a nazi hater??
Click to expand...

No. But we know what promoting this trumped up horseshit against PP over  tissue from fetuses that likely would not have been carried to term makes you. We know what trying to shut off government funds for vital research and reproductive health services for women makes you.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus. you people are sick in the head and they should use all the people who supports and works at PP as specimens for body parts. The brains won't be usable so they toss them in the garbage...... We'll refer to you as a fetus when we write about how heroic you were
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a good idea. Allow them to do unlimited human experimentation...upon each other. They truly are mentally ill and should be locked away from humanity. They are a threat to it, as everybody is beginning to see. Too late, of course. The damage is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about human experimentation or experimentation on living beings.  Hyperbole much?  Or just the usual dishonest rhetoric.  If so, I suggest you organize protests against cadever organ and tissue donation.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. What do you suppose the dead babies are used for, ding dong? Oh and one of your baby killing buddies already commented that dead babies might result (someday) in life saving procedures and materials. That means experimentation. Unless you are suggesting there are a lot of valid uses for dead baby flesh right now....aside from research. Or will you stupidly pretend research and experimentation are not associated? The possible places for your dishonest justification for murder and abuse to go are endless.


----------



## Coyote

It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.

In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.

Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.

Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, she was alive. That's why they had to withhold food and water to kill her. Like I said...weak helpless people have shortened lifespans when a progressive notices them.
Click to expand...


A brain dead cadaver can be kept alive artificially.  If we "play God" by ending life, then we are surely "playing God" by prolonging it in this manner.  It's isn't "life" as many of us would want it.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it
Click to expand...

If one is diagnosed to be in a permanent vegetative state, yes. As far as your breast-feeding example -- no, no one can force a woman to breast feed.


----------



## Stephanie

SNIP:


Here’s hoping the CMP videos initiate a paradigm shift in the nation’s thinking. We’ve got nothing to lose but our self-imposed cultural degradation
*The Banality of Evil*
By Arnold Ahlert -- Bio and Archives _August 3, 2015 _


“Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.” The book recounted the trial of Nazi Adolph Eichmann, who was chief of operations for the Gestapo-run Department for Jewish Affairs, and responsible for the deportation of three million Jews to extermination camps. Arendt hypothesized that people who carry out such barbarous crimes may not be inherently evil, but instead fairly ordinary individuals who simply accept the premises under which they operate.

For the last two weeks, our nation has been rocked by a series of videos produced by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) revealing that Planned Parenthood (PP) has been involved in the harvesting and selling of fetal organs. CMP has released four of what they say is a series of 12 undercover videos, and each one has been more disturbing than its predecessor. In a bombshell claim, CMP founder David Daleiden revealed to CNN that one of those videos depicts a meeting with top leaders from organ recipient company StemExpress, admitting “they sometimes get fully intact fetuses shipped to their laboratory from the abortion clinics they work with, and that could be prima facie evidence of born-alive infants. And so that’s why they’re trying to suppress that videotape and they’re very scared of it.”

Indeed, StemExpress sued to keep the video from going public, and they secured a temporary stay from Judge William Orrick, a California federal judge who raised $230,000 for Barack Obama. And, by the way, PP President Cecile Richards has visited the White House 39 times since 2009 — just to be clear how much Obama supports the abortion industry.

None of what the public has seen so far could be described as banal. Yet for the pro-abortionists and their supporters in government and the media, who ultimately convinced the Supreme Court to decide the entire nation _must_ accept the premise of abortion on demand is an integral part of the auspices under which the nation must now operate, the act that has precipitated every bit of this descent into organ-harvesting darkness has become the _essence_ of banality.

ALL of it here:
The Banality of Evil


----------



## Stephanie




----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.


 Actually, we aren't silent on it. You just don't engage in that conversation because your primary focus is to justify the butchery of much older babies, so you only see us here.


----------



## Coyote

Stephanie said:


>



You do realize that abortions after 20 weeks are extremely uncommon and account for only 1.5 %?

They are also strictly regulated after 24 weeks.

These aren't late term abortions being talked about here.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we aren't silent on it. You just don't engage in that conversation because your primary focus is to justify the butchery of much older babies, so you only see us here.
Click to expand...


Strange....I can find zillions of threads here on abortion but in vitro?  No....

Same when it I look info...no mass protests, no demands being made....no labeling of "baby killer" and "slut" to the women who produced them.

But I understand your need to move the goalposts.  Suddenly - you draw a distinction between the ages of a fetus.  Why?  Are some more worthy of protection than others?


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we aren't silent on it. You just don't engage in that conversation because your primary focus is to justify the butchery of much older babies, so you only see us here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange....I can find zillions of threads here on abortion but in vitro?  No....
> 
> Same when it I look info...no mass protests, no demands being made....no labeling of "baby killer" and "slut" to the women who produced them.
> 
> But I understand your need to move the goalposts.  Suddenly - you draw a distinction between the ages of a fetus.  Why?  Are some more worthy of protection than others?
Click to expand...

 
Nope. It's just that the baby murderers don't go around screeching how great it is like they do about PP butcher shops. If you did, you'd find the same people there.


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it
Click to expand...



Tube is artificial feed.  Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath.  Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days.  This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.  
Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She really was not alive.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tube is artificial feed.  Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath.  Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days.  This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
> Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
> Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She really was not alive.
Click to expand...

 

"she really was not alive" = "she was alive, but vulnerable". Therefore unable to protest at being dispatched.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we aren't silent on it. You just don't engage in that conversation because your primary focus is to justify the butchery of much older babies, so you only see us here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange....I can find zillions of threads here on abortion but in vitro?  No....
> 
> Same when it I look info...no mass protests, no demands being made....no labeling of "baby killer" and "slut" to the women who produced them.
> 
> But I understand your need to move the goalposts.  Suddenly - you draw a distinction between the ages of a fetus.  Why?  Are some more worthy of protection than others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. It's just that the baby murderers don't go around screeching how great it is like they do about PP butcher shops. If you did, you'd find the same people there.
Click to expand...


It was actors intentionally trying to catch the off comment and entrap those of the PP into this farce.  In any field you will find those who might be perceived as heartless or jaded.  It is a defense mechanism, much like what happens in war.  You learn about saving people that can be saved and making comfortable those who can't.  It is not heartless, but it is practical, using resources where they will do the most good.  The PP help those who want children and those who don't want at this time.  There will be life and death.  The tissue is either for research or for incineration as medical waste.  Do you expect people to stand around and cry for each piece that is put in the fire?  Why do you expect them to be all blurry eyed when talking of expenses or tissue to be used for research?  Should each piece have a name given by the mother?  It was not a living breathing independent thing yet.  It was not given birth.  It is a mass of cells developing over time.  It has not life on it's own.  It is a leech draining the woman slowly.  It is in the first trimester when most miscarriages that place, the body is in conflict with the pregnancy.  Many factors are in place to keep the body from rejecting the egg.  It is an alien thing in the body.

Until it is sufficiently developed to live outside the woman's body it is not really alive or a baby.  Since the first live birth, women have had to deal with loss.  A loss before birth when hormones change a loss is much easier to deal with.  After birth hormones effect the brain to motivate the mother to care for the infant.

No choice when it comes to consider being a mother is easy.  Only the woman can decide what is best for her and her body.  Either way she has to live with her choice.  It is her life and the choice should not be made for her by strangers who do not know her or care about her life.  Few of the pro-life poster seem to give the woman much consideration at all, only to the potential life her body is developing.  They are enslaving the woman for nine months or more to serve not herself but an alien being growing insider her.  They want her to give birth but not about what she goes through during the pregnancy.  They care about a life that can be adopted but not about all the lives out there that are going un-adopted.  They want to force a woman who is not ready to be a mother to give birth but they say nothing of all the half million miscarriages or so each year.  They say nothing about how difficult it really is to adopt a child.  They cannot promise all the women their children will go to a good loving home.

You control your body, but you should not control the body or other women out there.  You make choices for your body, allow women to do the same.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
> Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier.  I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied.  I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus. you people are sick in the head and they should use all the people who supports and works at PP as specimens for body parts. The brains won't be usable so they toss them in the garbage...... We'll refer to you as a fetus when we write about how heroic you were
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a good idea. Allow them to do unlimited human experimentation...upon each other. They truly are mentally ill and should be locked away from humanity. They are a threat to it, as everybody is beginning to see. Too late, of course. The damage is done.
Click to expand...


Would you prevent a woman from getting pregnant just to produce an organ(s) for a living child that would otherwise die?  Why should you care if waste tissue is used for research.   Both are used to save lives.


----------



## SassyIrishLass




----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus. you people are sick in the head and they should use all the people who supports and works at PP as specimens for body parts. The brains won't be usable so they toss them in the garbage...... We'll refer to you as a fetus when we write about how heroic you were
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a good idea. Allow them to do unlimited human experimentation...upon each other. They truly are mentally ill and should be locked away from humanity. They are a threat to it, as everybody is beginning to see. Too late, of course. The damage is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you prevent a woman from getting pregnant just to produce an organ(s) for a living child that would otherwise die?  Why should you care if waste tissue is used for research.   Both are used to save lives.
Click to expand...

 

No.one is used to prevent life. One is used to destroy it.


----------



## PK1

aris2chat said:


> off





aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we aren't silent on it. You just don't engage in that conversation because your primary focus is to justify the butchery of much older babies, so you only see us here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange....I can find zillions of threads here on abortion but in vitro?  No....
> 
> Same when it I look info...no mass protests, no demands being made....no labeling of "baby killer" and "slut" to the women who produced them.
> 
> But I understand your need to move the goalposts.  Suddenly - you draw a distinction between the ages of a fetus.  Why?  Are some more worthy of protection than others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. It's just that the baby murderers don't go around screeching how great it is like they do about PP butcher shops. If you did, you'd find the same people there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was actors intentionally trying to catch the off comment and entrap those of the PP into this farce.  In any field you will find those who might be perceived as heartless or jaded.  It is a defense mechanism, much like what happens in war.  You learn about saving people that can be saved and making comfortable those who can't.  It is not heartless, but it is practical, using resources where they will do the most good.  The PP help those who want children and those who don't want at this time.  There will be life and death.  The tissue is either for research or for incineration as medical waste.  Do you expect people to stand around and cry for each piece that is put in the fire?  Why do you expect them to be all blurry eyed when talking of expenses or tissue to be used for research?  Should each piece have a name given by the mother?  It was not a living breathing independent thing yet.  It was not given birth.  It is a mass of cells developing over time.  It has not life on it's own.  It is a leech draining the woman slowly.  It is in the first trimester when most miscarriages that place, the body is in conflict with the pregnancy.  Many factors are in place to keep the body from rejecting the egg.  It is an alien thing in the body.
> 
> Until it is sufficiently developed to live outside the woman's body it is not really alive or a baby.  Since the first live birth, women have had to deal with loss.  A loss before birth when hormones change a loss is much easier to deal with.  After birth hormones effect the brain to motivate the mother to care for the infant.
> 
> No choice when it comes to consider being a mother is easy.  Only the woman can decide what is best for her and her body.  Either way she has to live with her choice.  It is her life and the choice should not be made for her by strangers who do not know her or care about her life.  Few of the pro-life poster seem to give the woman much consideration at all, only to the potential life her body is developing.  They are enslaving the woman for nine months or more to serve not herself but an alien being growing insider her.  They want her to give birth but not about what she goes through during the pregnancy.  They care about a life that can be adopted but not about all the lives out there that are going un-adopted.  They want to force a woman who is not ready to be a mother to give birth but they say nothing of all the half million miscarriages or so each year.  They say nothing about how difficult it really is to adopt a child.  They cannot promise all the women their children will go to a good loving home.
> 
> You control your body, but you should not control the body or other women out there.  You make choices for your body, allow women to do the same.
Click to expand...


---
Wow! 
A very comprehensive RATIONAL post.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus. you people are sick in the head and they should use all the people who supports and works at PP as specimens for body parts. The brains won't be usable so they toss them in the garbage...... We'll refer to you as a fetus when we write about how heroic you were
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a good idea. Allow them to do unlimited human experimentation...upon each other. They truly are mentally ill and should be locked away from humanity. They are a threat to it, as everybody is beginning to see. Too late, of course. The damage is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about human experimentation or experimentation on living beings.  Hyperbole much?  Or just the usual dishonest rhetoric.  If so, I suggest you organize protests against cadever organ and tissue donation.
Click to expand...


Sorry but I have already made arrangement for what is viable to be donated to science.  I would be glad for students and scientists to learn from me.  It could save others from suffering or even death. Otherwise I would just be so much worm food.  Why anyone would want their bodies filled with plastic and put in a metal box for a century or more is to me unfathomable.  I don't want people standing over a rock and crying over me.  What a tragic waste.

I think organ donation should be automatic unless there is a specific reason against it.  It should not be a choice to mark a box for donation but should be a choice to mark a box against it, and should be required to have a medical statement notarized for a reason against to be on file.

I stopped going to funerals long ago.  Seen far too may buried.  Seen too many die because of hate and prejudice.  Seen too many that could not be saved.  If that makes me a heartless bitch, so be it.  Even those in the medical profession eventually stop crying over every death of their patients.  There are too many still alive that need them more than the dead.  Death is inevitable for all of us.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus. you people are sick in the head and they should use all the people who supports and works at PP as specimens for body parts. The brains won't be usable so they toss them in the garbage...... We'll refer to you as a fetus when we write about how heroic you were
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a good idea. Allow them to do unlimited human experimentation...upon each other. They truly are mentally ill and should be locked away from humanity. They are a threat to it, as everybody is beginning to see. Too late, of course. The damage is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about human experimentation or experimentation on living beings.  Hyperbole much?  Or just the usual dishonest rhetoric.  If so, I suggest you organize protests against cadever organ and tissue donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but I have already made arrangement for what is viable to be donated to science.  I would be glad for students and scientists to learn from me.  It could save others from suffering or even death. Otherwise I would just be so much worm food.  Why anyone would want their bodies filled with plastic and put in a metal box for a century or more is to me unfathomable.  I don't want people standing over a rock and crying over me.  What a tragic waste.
> 
> I think organ donation should be automatic unless there is a specific reason against it.  It should not be a choice to mark a box for donation but should be a choice to mark a box against it, and should be required to have a medical statement notarized for a reason against to be on file.
> 
> I stopped going to funerals long ago.  Seen far too may buried.  Seen too many die because of hate and prejudice.  Seen too many that could not be saved.  If that makes me a heartless bitch, so be it.  Even those in the medical profession eventually stop crying over every death of their patients.  There are too many still alive that need them more than the dead.  Death is inevitable for all of us.
Click to expand...


I have checked off for organ donation, and I may also donate my body for medical or cadever research if I'm not cremated.  Why would I care what happens to me after I'm gone?  I won't.  As they say - ashes to ashes, dust to dust.  I'd rather fertilize an oak tree and donate organs.  At least something alive will come of it.


----------



## aris2chat

Coyote said:


> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.



Around 2 million of those potential embryos are destroyed each year in the US.


----------



## Coyote

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around 2 million of those potential embryos are destroyed each year in the US.
Click to expand...


That's almost double the number of abortions in the US in one year.

Where's the appropriate level of outrage?


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around 2 million of those potential embryos are destroyed each year in the US.
Click to expand...

 Your desperate attempts to change the subject are noted.


----------



## aris2chat

SassyIrishLass said:


>



Organs are not viable for transplant.  It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.

Something good out of something unfortunate.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organs are not viable for transplant.  It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.
> 
> Something good out of something unfortunate.
Click to expand...

 
Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around 2 million of those potential embryos are destroyed each year in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your desperate attempts to change the subject are noted.
Click to expand...


Not at all, I was following the comments about invitro embryos.  It is all about tissue for disposal or research.  It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
How is this off topic?


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around 2 million of those potential embryos are destroyed each year in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your desperate attempts to change the subject are noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, I was following the comments about invitro embryos.  It is all about tissue for disposal or research.  It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> How is this off topic?
Click to expand...

 
It relates to this..how?

*Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts*

I suppose if you call attempting to draw attention away from the illegal activities of Planned Parenthood "on topic", it works.

I like macaroni.

See, I can do that too. Except I have no desire to, since I'm doing a good job of exposing the lies that the local baby killers tell to defend baby killing and the sale of the dead babies. I can stay on topic and make my points.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around 2 million of those potential embryos are destroyed each year in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your desperate attempts to change the subject are noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, I was following the comments about invitro embryos.  It is all about tissue for disposal or research.  It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> How is this off topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It relates to this..how?
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts
Click to expand...


She couldn't have said it any plainer:


> It is all about tissue for disposal or research. It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organs are not viable for transplant.  It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.
> 
> Something good out of something unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the *more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure *that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.
Click to expand...


It's not higher risk.
It's not dangerous.
The procedure itself is not illegal.
What's illegal is changing the procedure you would routinely use.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around 2 million of those potential embryos are destroyed each year in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your desperate attempts to change the subject are noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, I was following the comments about invitro embryos.  It is all about tissue for disposal or research.  It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> How is this off topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It relates to this..how?
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She couldn't have said it any plainer:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all about tissue for disposal or research. It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.

Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling  fertility clinic embryos???


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organs are not viable for transplant.  It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.
> 
> Something good out of something unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the *more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure *that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not higher risk.
> It's not dangerous.
> The procedure itself is not illegal.
> What's illegal is changing the procedure you would routinely use.
Click to expand...

 
It is higher risk.
It is painful.
The procedure is illegal.
They are changing the procedure to accommodate baby selling.

And I have repeatedly confirmed that with various independent and qualified sources.

You should stop lying. You make usmb look bad.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organs are not viable for transplant.  It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.
> 
> Something good out of something unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.
Click to expand...


Most women that opt for surgical abortion are given a general anesthesia and feel nothing.  Less than half an hour after waking they are dressed and walking out on their own.  Chemicals can be more difficult and painful with side effects, a bit like chemo.

It is only in late term that a fetus is cut and removed in pieces to facilitate the passing through the canal.  Late term is a medical decision to save the woman's life or to prevent the suffering of the fetus and imminent death because the fetus has a severe birth defect.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Around 2 million of those potential embryos are destroyed each year in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> Your desperate attempts to change the subject are noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all, I was following the comments about invitro embryos.  It is all about tissue for disposal or research.  It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> How is this off topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It relates to this..how?
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She couldn't have said it any plainer:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all about tissue for disposal or research. It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.
> 
> Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling  fertility clinic embryos???
Click to expand...


You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.

PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.

You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.

Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your desperate attempts to change the subject are noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I was following the comments about invitro embryos.  It is all about tissue for disposal or research.  It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> How is this off topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It relates to this..how?
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She couldn't have said it any plainer:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all about tissue for disposal or research. It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.
> 
> Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling  fertility clinic embryos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.
> 
> PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.
> 
> You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.
> 
> Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.

And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your desperate attempts to change the subject are noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I was following the comments about invitro embryos.  It is all about tissue for disposal or research.  It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> How is this off topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It relates to this..how?
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She couldn't have said it any plainer:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all about tissue for disposal or research. It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.
> 
> Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling  fertility clinic embryos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.
> 
> PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.
> 
> You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.
> 
> Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.
Click to expand...

 
The thread is what it is. This thread is the discussion of Planned Parenthood's practice of butchering women and selling dead babies for profit. If you want to discuss abortion and choice, you should start another thread for that.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organs are not viable for transplant.  It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.
> 
> Something good out of something unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the *more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure *that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not higher risk.
> It's not dangerous.
> The procedure itself is not illegal.
> What's illegal is changing the procedure you would routinely use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is higher risk.
> It is painful.
> The procedure is illegal.
> They are changing the procedure to accommodate baby selling.
> 
> And I have repeatedly confirmed that with various independent and qualified sources.
> 
> You should stop lying. You make usmb look bad.
Click to expand...


This was the conversation:


> “If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, ‘We’re not doing anything different in our care of you,'” she says.
> 
> _Gatter:_ So that’s an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem, if our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, “We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.” Now to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen, but I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something saying that we’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because we agree to give tissue. You’ve heard that before.
> 
> _CMP:_ Yes. It’s touchy. How do you feel about that?
> 
> _Gatter:_ I think they’re both totally appropriate techniques, there’s no difference in pain involved, I don’t think the patients would care one iota. So yeah, I’m not making a fuss about that.
> 
> _CMP:_ Mhm. IPAS is the manual suction, right?



Manual suction is described here: Abortion Procedures Surgical vs. Non surgical Find Private Abortion Services. Medical information on Early Abortion and Miscarriage with MVA and the Abortion Pill.

It is not illegal.


----------



## sakinago

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, she was alive. That's why they had to withhold food and water to kill her. Like I said...weak helpless people have shortened lifespans when a progressive notices them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A brain dead cadaver can be kept alive artificially.  If we "play God" by ending life, then we are surely "playing God" by prolonging it in this manner.  It's isn't "life" as many of us would want it.
Click to expand...

Brain dead doesn't move or react, by your definition severely autistic is nothing but a cadaver.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I was following the comments about invitro embryos.  It is all about tissue for disposal or research.  It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> How is this off topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It relates to this..how?
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She couldn't have said it any plainer:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all about tissue for disposal or research. It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.
> 
> Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling  fertility clinic embryos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.
> 
> PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.
> 
> You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.
> 
> Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.
> 
> And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.
Click to expand...


If it's "all about" the "profit margin" - *show us the profits*.  I looked at the transcript and saw the "buyer" trying to make a case for "higher profits" but nothing where PP was making a case or agreeing.

You'd rather abuse women by forcing them to have an unwanted pregnancy then dumping them once the product is produced.


----------



## Coyote

sakinago said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, she was alive. That's why they had to withhold food and water to kill her. Like I said...weak helpless people have shortened lifespans when a progressive notices them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A brain dead cadaver can be kept alive artificially.  If we "play God" by ending life, then we are surely "playing God" by prolonging it in this manner.  It's isn't "life" as many of us would want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brain dead doesn't move or react, by your definition severely autistic is nothing but a cadaver.
Click to expand...


That is *your* definition, not mine.  What constitutes brain dead is not simply a lack of movement or reaction.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all, I was following the comments about invitro embryos.  It is all about tissue for disposal or research.  It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> How is this off topic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It relates to this..how?
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She couldn't have said it any plainer:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all about tissue for disposal or research. It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.
> 
> Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling  fertility clinic embryos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.
> 
> PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.
> 
> You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.
> 
> Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.
> 
> And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.
Click to expand...


Intentionally set up situations to film a half dozen videos with actor and a couple of workers out of some 700 PP clinics discussing expenses in a legal transaction of donating tissue for research.

Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video

There is a high demand of the tissue and only a limited supply.  The research and vaccines save lives, tissue used would otherwise be burned as waste.

PP does a lot more than abortions to help women.  Congress failed to defund PP.  PP are involved in prenatal care and screening for woman's health issues.  They provide education on options for the woman to make an informed decision that is right for her.


----------



## Stephanie

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organs are not viable for transplant.  It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.
> 
> Something good out of something unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most women that opt for surgical abortion are given a general anesthesia and feel nothing.  Less than half an hour after waking they are dressed and walking out on their own.  Chemicals can be more difficult and painful with side effects, a bit like chemo.
> 
> It is only in late term that a fetus is cut and removed in pieces to facilitate the passing through the canal.  Late term is a medical decision to save the woman's life or to prevent the suffering of the fetus and imminent death because the fetus has a severe birth defect.
Click to expand...


you sound like an expert. how many abortions have you performed? Just a little half hour walk in the park. Hell you won't even remember they SUCKED your baby from your body. You must work in the baby killing Industry you know so much about it


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organs are not viable for transplant.  It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.
> 
> Something good out of something unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the *more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure *that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not higher risk.
> It's not dangerous.
> The procedure itself is not illegal.
> What's illegal is changing the procedure you would routinely use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is higher risk.
> It is painful.
> The procedure is illegal.
> They are changing the procedure to accommodate baby selling.
> 
> And I have repeatedly confirmed that with various independent and qualified sources.
> 
> You should stop lying. You make usmb look bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was the conversation:
> 
> 
> 
> “If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, ‘We’re not doing anything different in our care of you,'” she says.
> 
> _Gatter:_ So that’s an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem, if our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, “We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.” Now to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen, but I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something saying that we’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because we agree to give tissue. You’ve heard that before.
> 
> _CMP:_ Yes. It’s touchy. How do you feel about that?
> 
> _Gatter:_ I think they’re both totally appropriate techniques, there’s no difference in pain involved, I don’t think the patients would care one iota. So yeah, I’m not making a fuss about that.
> 
> _CMP:_ Mhm. IPAS is the manual suction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manual suction is described here: Abortion Procedures Surgical vs. Non surgical Find Private Abortion Services. Medical information on Early Abortion and Miscarriage with MVA and the Abortion Pill.
> 
> It is not illegal.
Click to expand...

 
What they do is illegal, and what all three of the directors talked about was illegal. Altering the procedure (to partial birth abortion) in order to facilitate lucrative harvest. Lucrative for PP. Not for the woman, who has her feet up in the stirrups, doped, in pain, coerced and afraid. She gets nothing. She thinks the people slicing and dicing her are competent...instead of non-certified, disgraced, non-M.D. drug addicts that are the norm for PP abortionists.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It relates to this..how?
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She couldn't have said it any plainer:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all about tissue for disposal or research. It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.
> 
> Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling  fertility clinic embryos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.
> 
> PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.
> 
> You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.
> 
> Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.
> 
> And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intentionally set up situations to film a half dozen videos with actor and a couple of workers out of some 700 PP clinics discussing expenses in a legal transaction of donating tissue for research.
> 
> Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> There is a high demand of the tissue and only a limited supply.  The research and vaccines save lives, tissue used would otherwise be burned as waste.
> 
> PP does a lot more than abortions to help women.  Congress failed to defund PP.  PP are involved in prenatal care and screening for woman's health issues.  They provide education on options for the woman to make an informed decision that is right for her.
Click to expand...

 
It's called investigative journalism. It's how we catch monsters. It's pretty much the opposite of propaganda, which is what baby killers rely on to hide what they're doing.


----------



## Stephanie

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> She couldn't have said it any plainer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.
> 
> Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling  fertility clinic embryos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.
> 
> PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.
> 
> You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.
> 
> Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.
> 
> And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intentionally set up situations to film a half dozen videos with actor and a couple of workers out of some 700 PP clinics discussing expenses in a legal transaction of donating tissue for research.
> 
> Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> There is a high demand of the tissue and only a limited supply.  The research and vaccines save lives, tissue used would otherwise be burned as waste.
> 
> PP does a lot more than abortions to help women.  Congress failed to defund PP.  PP are involved in prenatal care and screening for woman's health issues.  They provide education on options for the woman to make an informed decision that is right for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called investigative journalism. It's how we catch monsters. It's pretty much the opposite of propaganda, which is what baby killers rely on to hide what they're doing.
Click to expand...


that's what has people that is PRO abortion all upset. PP was caught. I never though so many people in this country would take the side of medical butchers over the unborn baby/child/human being


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It relates to this..how?
> 
> Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She couldn't have said it any plainer:
> 
> 
> 
> It is all about tissue for disposal or research. It is all about potential life and the woman's decision what happens to that tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.
> 
> Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling  fertility clinic embryos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.
> 
> PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.
> 
> You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.
> 
> Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.
> 
> And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's "all about" the "profit margin" - *show us the profits*.  I looked at the transcript and saw the "buyer" trying to make a case for "higher profits" but nothing where PP was making a case or agreeing.
> 
> You'd rather abuse women by forcing them to have an unwanted pregnancy then dumping them once the product is produced.
Click to expand...

 
How many abused girls have you held down on the table for the PP butchers, coyote? Do you get a commission? Or do you get a per head cut?


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organs are not viable for transplant.  It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.
> 
> Something good out of something unfortunate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the *more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure *that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not higher risk.
> It's not dangerous.
> The procedure itself is not illegal.
> What's illegal is changing the procedure you would routinely use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is higher risk.
> It is painful.
> The procedure is illegal.
> They are changing the procedure to accommodate baby selling.
> 
> And I have repeatedly confirmed that with various independent and qualified sources.
> 
> You should stop lying. You make usmb look bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was the conversation:
> 
> 
> 
> “If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, ‘We’re not doing anything different in our care of you,'” she says.
> 
> _Gatter:_ So that’s an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem, if our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, “We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.” Now to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen, but I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something saying that we’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because we agree to give tissue. You’ve heard that before.
> 
> _CMP:_ Yes. It’s touchy. How do you feel about that?
> 
> _Gatter:_ I think they’re both totally appropriate techniques, there’s no difference in pain involved, I don’t think the patients would care one iota. So yeah, I’m not making a fuss about that.
> 
> _CMP:_ Mhm. IPAS is the manual suction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manual suction is described here: Abortion Procedures Surgical vs. Non surgical Find Private Abortion Services. Medical information on Early Abortion and Miscarriage with MVA and the Abortion Pill.
> 
> It is not illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they do is illegal, and what all three of the directors talked about was illegal. Altering the procedure (to partial birth abortion) in order to facilitate lucrative harvest. Lucrative for PP. Not for the woman, who has her feet up in the stirrups, doped, in pain, coerced and afraid. She gets nothing. She thinks the people slicing and dicing her are competent...instead of non-certified, disgraced, non-M.D. drug addicts that are the norm for PP abortionists.
Click to expand...


That is not what you said.  Read your own words.

Also, try to stay on track.

With this procedure there is no slicing/dicing.  Unless she was coerced by someone outside of PP, she is not coerced and afraid and not under anesthesia.

Perhaps you have some meaningful statistics that indicate that "non-certified, disgraced, non-M.D. drug addicts that are the norm for PP abortionists" are the norm?

I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> She couldn't have said it any plainer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.
> 
> Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling  fertility clinic embryos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.
> 
> PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.
> 
> You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.
> 
> Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.
> 
> And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's "all about" the "profit margin" - *show us the profits*.  I looked at the transcript and saw the "buyer" trying to make a case for "higher profits" but nothing where PP was making a case or agreeing.
> 
> You'd rather abuse women by forcing them to have an unwanted pregnancy then dumping them once the product is produced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many abused girls have you held down on the table for the PP butchers, coyote? Do you get a commission? Or do you get a per head cut?
Click to expand...


Hyperbole much?


----------



## JFish123

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stephanie

JFish123 said:


> View attachment 46532
> View attachment 46533
> View attachment 46534
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




EXCELLENT Post. and there it is. they LIE to these women while sucking their children from their bodies


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the *more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure *that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not higher risk.
> It's not dangerous.
> The procedure itself is not illegal.
> What's illegal is changing the procedure you would routinely use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is higher risk.
> It is painful.
> The procedure is illegal.
> They are changing the procedure to accommodate baby selling.
> 
> And I have repeatedly confirmed that with various independent and qualified sources.
> 
> You should stop lying. You make usmb look bad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was the conversation:
> 
> 
> 
> “If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, ‘We’re not doing anything different in our care of you,'” she says.
> 
> _Gatter:_ So that’s an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem, if our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, “We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.” Now to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen, but I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something saying that we’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because we agree to give tissue. You’ve heard that before.
> 
> _CMP:_ Yes. It’s touchy. How do you feel about that?
> 
> _Gatter:_ I think they’re both totally appropriate techniques, there’s no difference in pain involved, I don’t think the patients would care one iota. So yeah, I’m not making a fuss about that.
> 
> _CMP:_ Mhm. IPAS is the manual suction, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manual suction is described here: Abortion Procedures Surgical vs. Non surgical Find Private Abortion Services. Medical information on Early Abortion and Miscarriage with MVA and the Abortion Pill.
> 
> It is not illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What they do is illegal, and what all three of the directors talked about was illegal. Altering the procedure (to partial birth abortion) in order to facilitate lucrative harvest. Lucrative for PP. Not for the woman, who has her feet up in the stirrups, doped, in pain, coerced and afraid. She gets nothing. She thinks the people slicing and dicing her are competent...instead of non-certified, disgraced, non-M.D. drug addicts that are the norm for PP abortionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is not what you said.  Read your own words.
> 
> Also, try to stay on track.
> 
> With this procedure there is no slicing/dicing.  Unless she was coerced by someone outside of PP, she is not coerced and afraid and not under anesthesia.
> 
> Perhaps you have some meaningful statistics that indicate that "non-certified, disgraced, non-M.D. drug addicts that are the norm for PP abortionists" are the norm?
> 
> I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

 
Slicing, dicing, coercion:

"Itai Gravely, a 26-year-old woman, filed suit against the Women’s Health Center of West Virginia and abortionist Rodney Lee Stephens after Stephens allegedly forced Ms. Gravely to proceed with an abortion against her will and then left her dead baby’s head inside her womb.[53]

Ms. Gravely changed her mind about the abortion after adequate anesthesia could not be administered.
Dr. Stephens ordered clinic workers to physically restrain Ms. Gravely as he proceeded with the abortion.
The next day, Ms. Gravely was rushed to the emergency room where it was discovered that dismembered body parts, including the head of her child, had been left in her womb. "

Kermit Gosnell is Not an Outlier SBA-List


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.
> 
> Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling  fertility clinic embryos???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.
> 
> PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.
> 
> You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.
> 
> Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.
> 
> And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's "all about" the "profit margin" - *show us the profits*.  I looked at the transcript and saw the "buyer" trying to make a case for "higher profits" but nothing where PP was making a case or agreeing.
> 
> You'd rather abuse women by forcing them to have an unwanted pregnancy then dumping them once the product is produced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many abused girls have you held down on the table for the PP butchers, coyote? Do you get a commission? Or do you get a per head cut?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole much?
Click to expand...

 
No, it's a serious question. I believe you are a paid scout.


----------



## koshergrl

JFish123 said:


> View attachment 46532
> View attachment 46533
> View attachment 46534
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 I suspect this will be deleted. It's okay to jokingly post images of dead fetal pigs in abortion threads...but the baby killers find the images of aborted babies too graphic. Presumably because they know they're babies. I mean, everybody knows they're babies....they just don't like to be faced with it.


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tube is artificial feed.  Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath.  Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days.  This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
> Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
> Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She really was not alive.
Click to expand...

Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support. And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time, I was unfortunate enough to experience it myself as a student. Guy was considered brain dead for 2 years, had every tube possible tube connected to him, much more than chaivo. I went to roll him and do a skin assessment early in my shift, under his back was an O2 nozzle imbedded into his skin from him laying on it all night. Pulled it out, lotioned up the spot. Set him on his side, and said I bet that feels much better. To my Suprise he looked me in the eye, nodded with his eyes, then he went back to staring at the ceiling. I reported it, a neurologist came by later, in 2 mins came out and said no way he is brain dead. Long story short this guys mother got a nice big settlement from the hospital. 

So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tube is artificial feed.  Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath.  Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days.  This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
> Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
> Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She really was not alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support. And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time, I was unfortunate enough to experience it myself as a student. Guy was considered brain dead for 2 years, had every tube possible tube connected to him, much more than chaivo. I went to roll him and do a skin assessment early in my shift, under his back was an O2 nozzle imbedded into his skin from him laying on it all night. Pulled it out, lotioned up the spot. Set him on his side, and said I bet that feels much better. To my Suprise he looked me in the eye, nodded with his eyes, then he went back to staring at the ceiling. I reported it, a neurologist came by later, in 2 mins came out and said no way he is brain dead. Long story short this guys mother got a nice big settlement from the hospital.
> 
> So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
Click to expand...

Give them time! And non-consensual euthanasia is a big "YES!" in Denmark.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tube is artificial feed.  Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath.  Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days.  This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
> Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
> Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She really was not alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. *A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.*
Click to expand...

_[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....

*765.101  Definitions*

(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​ 


sakinago said:


> And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...


_[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?



sakinago said:


> So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?


Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?


----------



## aris2chat

Stephanie said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organs are not viable for transplant.  It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.
> 
> Something good out of something unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most women that opt for surgical abortion are given a general anesthesia and feel nothing.  Less than half an hour after waking they are dressed and walking out on their own.  Chemicals can be more difficult and painful with side effects, a bit like chemo.
> 
> It is only in late term that a fetus is cut and removed in pieces to facilitate the passing through the canal.  Late term is a medical decision to save the woman's life or to prevent the suffering of the fetus and imminent death because the fetus has a severe birth defect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you sound like an expert. how many abortions have you performed? Just a little half hour walk in the park. Hell you won't even remember they SUCKED your baby from your body. You must work in the baby killing Industry you know so much about it
Click to expand...


I help our neighbor, a nurse, treat people of all ages and conditions who could not get to a hospital or doctor.  I also help out at refugee camps.  A lot of it was field medicine, and no always of just people.   I also was involved in researching of long term pain for both doctors and patients.   I was asked to be hospice/geriatric in home caretaker.  I've help with women who both lost and gave birth.  Back then everyone had to dig in and help in any way possible to survive.  We all had to wear many hats.

I can fix a sink but that does not make me a plumber.  I don't need to have performed any abortions to have educated myself, or to care about women and children, and animals.  I don't work in a killing industry, but I have witnessed too much wasted killing and mutilation.

......and I don't have to be an expert to know you are being a crass moron to try and insult me, but not a very good one.

Why is it necessary for people to be so stupid to not want to inform themselves on a topic, both sides?  Why should only experts be able to read technical or medical journals?  Why don't more people read the news instead of propaganda?  Why do so many care more about a life not yet developed but not about the woman and what she might be going through?


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organs are not viable for transplant.  It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.
> 
> Something good out of something unfortunate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most women that opt for surgical abortion are given a general anesthesia and feel nothing.  Less than half an hour after waking they are dressed and walking out on their own.  Chemicals can be more difficult and painful with side effects, a bit like chemo.
> 
> It is only in late term that a fetus is cut and removed in pieces to facilitate the passing through the canal.  Late term is a medical decision to save the woman's life or to prevent the suffering of the fetus and imminent death because the fetus has a severe birth defect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you sound like an expert. how many abortions have you performed? Just a little half hour walk in the park. Hell you won't even remember they SUCKED your baby from your body. You must work in the baby killing Industry you know so much about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I help our neighbor, a nurse, treat people of all ages and conditions who could not get to a hospital or doctor.  I also help out at refugee camps.  A lot of it was field medicine, and no always of just people.   I also was involved in researching of long term pain for both doctors and patients.   I was asked to be hospice/geriatric in home caretaker.  I've help with women who both lost and gave birth.  Back then everyone had to dig in and help in any way possible to survive.  We all had to wear many hats.
> 
> I can fix a sink but that does not make me a plumber.  I don't need to have performed any abortions to have educated myself, or to care about women and children, and animals.  I don't work in a killing industry, but I have witnessed too much wasted killing and mutilation.
> 
> ......and I don't have to be an expert to know you are being a crass moron to try and insult me, but not a very good one.
> 
> Why is it necessary for people to be so stupid to not want to inform themselves on a topic, both sides?  Why should only experts be able to read technical or medical journals?  Why don't more people read the news instead of propaganda?  Why do so many care more about a life not yet developed but not about the woman and what she might be going through?
Click to expand...

 You and the *nurse* practice unauthorized medicine?

You are an abortionist, aren't you? Can you say "back alley abortions = good medicine!" Wait, you already said that.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tube is artificial feed.  Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath.  Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days.  This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
> Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
> Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She really was not alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support. And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time, I was unfortunate enough to experience it myself as a student. Guy was considered brain dead for 2 years, had every tube possible tube connected to him, much more than chaivo. I went to roll him and do a skin assessment early in my shift, under his back was an O2 nozzle imbedded into his skin from him laying on it all night. Pulled it out, lotioned up the spot. Set him on his side, and said I bet that feels much better. To my Suprise he looked me in the eye, nodded with his eyes, then he went back to staring at the ceiling. I reported it, a neurologist came by later, in 2 mins came out and said no way he is brain dead. Long story short this guys mother got a nice big settlement from the hospital.
> 
> So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give them time! And non-consensual euthanasia is a big "YES!" in Denmark.
Click to expand...


.............Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont


----------



## sakinago

Coyote said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, she was alive. That's why they had to withhold food and water to kill her. Like I said...weak helpless people have shortened lifespans when a progressive notices them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A brain dead cadaver can be kept alive artificially.  If we "play God" by ending life, then we are surely "playing God" by prolonging it in this manner.  It's isn't "life" as many of us would want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brain dead doesn't move or react, by your definition severely autistic is nothing but a cadaver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is *your* definition, not mine.  What constitutes brain dead is not simply a lack of movement or reaction.
Click to expand...

Not my definition


----------



## Coyote

sakinago said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, she was alive. That's why they had to withhold food and water to kill her. Like I said...weak helpless people have shortened lifespans when a progressive notices them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A brain dead cadaver can be kept alive artificially.  If we "play God" by ending life, then we are surely "playing God" by prolonging it in this manner.  It's isn't "life" as many of us would want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brain dead doesn't move or react, by your definition severely autistic is nothing but a cadaver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is *your* definition, not mine.  What constitutes brain dead is not simply a lack of movement or reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my definition
Click to expand...


Then I don't know where the hell you pulled it out from.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tube is artificial feed.  Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath.  Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days.  This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
> Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
> Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She really was not alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. *A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
Click to expand...

Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you. And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organs are not viable for transplant.  It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.
> 
> Something good out of something unfortunate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you happen to be the unfortunate woman who is put at risk for the more painful, stressful, dangerous and illegal procedure that they use in order to obtain those items for sale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most women that opt for surgical abortion are given a general anesthesia and feel nothing.  Less than half an hour after waking they are dressed and walking out on their own.  Chemicals can be more difficult and painful with side effects, a bit like chemo.
> 
> It is only in late term that a fetus is cut and removed in pieces to facilitate the passing through the canal.  Late term is a medical decision to save the woman's life or to prevent the suffering of the fetus and imminent death because the fetus has a severe birth defect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you sound like an expert. how many abortions have you performed? Just a little half hour walk in the park. Hell you won't even remember they SUCKED your baby from your body. You must work in the baby killing Industry you know so much about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I help our neighbor, a nurse, treat people of all ages and conditions who could not get to a hospital or doctor.  I also help out at refugee camps.  A lot of it was field medicine, and no always of just people.   I also was involved in researching of long term pain for both doctors and patients.   I was asked to be hospice/geriatric in home caretaker.  I've help with women who both lost and gave birth.  Back then everyone had to dig in and help in any way possible to survive.  We all had to wear many hats.
> 
> I can fix a sink but that does not make me a plumber.  I don't need to have performed any abortions to have educated myself, or to care about women and children, and animals.  I don't work in a killing industry, but I have witnessed too much wasted killing and mutilation.
> 
> ......and I don't have to be an expert to know you are being a crass moron to try and insult me, but not a very good one.
> 
> Why is it necessary for people to be so stupid to not want to inform themselves on a topic, both sides?  Why should only experts be able to read technical or medical journals?  Why don't more people read the news instead of propaganda?  Why do so many care more about a life not yet developed but not about the woman and what she might be going through?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and the *nurse* practice unauthorized medicine?
> 
> You are an abortionist, aren't you? Can you say "back alley abortions = good medicine!" Wait, you already said that.
Click to expand...


No, she as a practitioner and I was helping.  She could not do it on her own.  Everyone had to pitch in and do things they had not does before. Came in handy during natural disasters years later.  There was a tradition of folk medicine and I was able to learn from both to help people.

Amazing how insulated some are in their nice little bubbles.  The rest of the world is very different.  Thankfully I was not raised with limits.  There were few things I was told I couldn't or shouldn't do, and I mostly ignored them.

Do you tell people on a farm they have to be a vet to be present at the birth or neuter their animals?  Do you have to be a doctor to treat your children when they are ill or injured?  You can do CPR or stop bleeding in an emergency without a medical degree.

I'm not an expert so I am not qualified to speak in your opinion?  And I though slavery was supposed to be something of the past in this country.  You should go back and read before you try to lie about people.

I must have hit some nerve to be so targeted.  Is that two or three point?  Do I get another shot?


----------



## sakinago

Coyote said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, she was alive. That's why they had to withhold food and water to kill her. Like I said...weak helpless people have shortened lifespans when a progressive notices them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A brain dead cadaver can be kept alive artificially.  If we "play God" by ending life, then we are surely "playing God" by prolonging it in this manner.  It's isn't "life" as many of us would want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brain dead doesn't move or react, by your definition severely autistic is nothing but a cadaver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is *your* definition, not mine.  What constitutes brain dead is not simply a lack of movement or reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my definition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I don't know where the hell you pulled it out from.
Click to expand...

I didn't bc I did not say that was my definition


----------



## Coyote

sakinago said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> A brain dead cadaver can be kept alive artificially.  If we "play God" by ending life, then we are surely "playing God" by prolonging it in this manner.  It's isn't "life" as many of us would want it.
> 
> 
> 
> Brain dead doesn't move or react, by your definition severely autistic is nothing but a cadaver.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is *your* definition, not mine.  What constitutes brain dead is not simply a lack of movement or reaction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my definition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I don't know where the hell you pulled it out from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't bc I did not say that was my definition
Click to expand...

 
It certainly isn't mine.


----------



## BlueGin

Stephanie said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.
> 
> Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling  fertility clinic embryos???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.
> 
> PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.
> 
> You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.
> 
> Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.
> 
> And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intentionally set up situations to film a half dozen videos with actor and a couple of workers out of some 700 PP clinics discussing expenses in a legal transaction of donating tissue for research.
> 
> Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> There is a high demand of the tissue and only a limited supply.  The research and vaccines save lives, tissue used would otherwise be burned as waste.
> 
> PP does a lot more than abortions to help women.  Congress failed to defund PP.  PP are involved in prenatal care and screening for woman's health issues.  They provide education on options for the woman to make an informed decision that is right for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called investigative journalism. It's how we catch monsters. It's pretty much the opposite of propaganda, which is what baby killers rely on to hide what they're doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's what has people that is PRO abortion all upset. PP was caught. I never though so many people in this country would take the side of medical butchers over the unborn baby/child/human being
Click to expand...


What? You didn't see them circle the wagons for Kermit Gosnell?


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.
> 
> PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.
> 
> You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.
> 
> Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.
> 
> And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's "all about" the "profit margin" - *show us the profits*.  I looked at the transcript and saw the "buyer" trying to make a case for "higher profits" but nothing where PP was making a case or agreeing.
> 
> You'd rather abuse women by forcing them to have an unwanted pregnancy then dumping them once the product is produced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many abused girls have you held down on the table for the PP butchers, coyote? Do you get a commission? Or do you get a per head cut?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's a serious question. I believe you are a paid scout.
Click to expand...




Believe what you wish - this is the internet, not real life.  Everyone has a right to their delusions.

Can you show us the profit you are claiming it's all about?


----------



## Coyote

BlueGin said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.
> 
> PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.
> 
> You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.
> 
> Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.
> 
> And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intentionally set up situations to film a half dozen videos with actor and a couple of workers out of some 700 PP clinics discussing expenses in a legal transaction of donating tissue for research.
> 
> Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> There is a high demand of the tissue and only a limited supply.  The research and vaccines save lives, tissue used would otherwise be burned as waste.
> 
> PP does a lot more than abortions to help women.  Congress failed to defund PP.  PP are involved in prenatal care and screening for woman's health issues.  They provide education on options for the woman to make an informed decision that is right for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called investigative journalism. It's how we catch monsters. It's pretty much the opposite of propaganda, which is what baby killers rely on to hide what they're doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's what has people that is PRO abortion all upset. PP was caught. I never though so many people in this country would take the side of medical butchers over the unborn baby/child/human being
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? You didn't see them circle the wagons for Kermit Gosnell?
Click to expand...


Really?  Can you provide the link to said wagons?


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> She couldn't have said it any plainer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the thread is about Planned Parenthood selling dead babies and putting women at risk to do it.
> 
> Unless you maintain Planned Parenthood is also selling  fertility clinic embryos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want it to be about PP selling body parts, but it about abortions and choice and tissue and research and the costs of preserving and transporting tissue.............etc.
> 
> PP is not selling tissue at a profit, not at $30 -100 for the tissue.  Now if there is an ongoing auction in the tens of thousands for each tissue, but that is not the case.
> 
> You are consumed in building a case on a lie of trafficking in organs.  The videos that have been released and those that have been blocked by the courts are dealing with costs associated with preserving and transporting the tissue,not an actual sale for profit.
> 
> Think of the lives being saved instead of the tissue being thrown in an incinerator as just so much trash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.
> 
> And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's "all about" the "profit margin" - *show us the profits*.  I looked at the transcript and saw the "buyer" trying to make a case for "higher profits" but nothing where PP was making a case or agreeing.
> 
> You'd rather abuse women by forcing them to have an unwanted pregnancy then dumping them once the product is produced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many abused girls have you held down on the table for the PP butchers, coyote? Do you get a commission? Or do you get a per head cut?
Click to expand...


Caught donating tissue?  That was not a secret and not illegal.  Caught giving abortions?  You didn't know?

Oh, the group releasing the videos illegally created through their own sting with actors to get enough video to slice a defamation smear campaign against a group that helps women in far more ways than just safe legal abortions.  Is that what you mean by caught?  How much video did they get that could not be used in their attacks?  A hundred hours maybe?  Two courts have put a halt to the release of more videos and the Scheidler zealots are being held libel for the attack videos.

Or was that you getting caught in a lie about other posters?


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are selling for a profit, and 4 of them have now been caught dickering for higher profits. Nobody's life is being saved. Women are being abused and put at risk, and babies are being *harvested* and sold via partial birth abortion....and sometimes, they aren't even dead when they do the harvesting. It's all about the profit margin.
> 
> And nobody has been *saved* by a partial birth abortion. Never, in the history of man, has a person been *saved* by torturing and killing women and children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intentionally set up situations to film a half dozen videos with actor and a couple of workers out of some 700 PP clinics discussing expenses in a legal transaction of donating tissue for research.
> 
> Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> There is a high demand of the tissue and only a limited supply.  The research and vaccines save lives, tissue used would otherwise be burned as waste.
> 
> PP does a lot more than abortions to help women.  Congress failed to defund PP.  PP are involved in prenatal care and screening for woman's health issues.  They provide education on options for the woman to make an informed decision that is right for her.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called investigative journalism. It's how we catch monsters. It's pretty much the opposite of propaganda, which is what baby killers rely on to hide what they're doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's what has people that is PRO abortion all upset. PP was caught. I never though so many people in this country would take the side of medical butchers over the unborn baby/child/human being
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? You didn't see them circle the wagons for Kermit Gosnell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Can you provide the link to said wagons?
Click to expand...

Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.


----------



## Coyote

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tube is artificial feed.  Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath.  Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days.  This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
> Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
> Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She really was not alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support. And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time, I was unfortunate enough to experience it myself as a student. Guy was considered brain dead for 2 years, had every tube possible tube connected to him, much more than chaivo. I went to roll him and do a skin assessment early in my shift, under his back was an O2 nozzle imbedded into his skin from him laying on it all night. Pulled it out, lotioned up the spot. Set him on his side, and said I bet that feels much better. To my Suprise he looked me in the eye, nodded with his eyes, then he went back to staring at the ceiling. I reported it, a neurologist came by later, in 2 mins came out and said no way he is brain dead. Long story short this guys mother got a nice big settlement from the hospital.
> 
> So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
Click to expand...




koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intentionally set up situations to film a half dozen videos with actor and a couple of workers out of some 700 PP clinics discussing expenses in a legal transaction of donating tissue for research.
> 
> Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> There is a high demand of the tissue and only a limited supply.  The research and vaccines save lives, tissue used would otherwise be burned as waste.
> 
> PP does a lot more than abortions to help women.  Congress failed to defund PP.  PP are involved in prenatal care and screening for woman's health issues.  They provide education on options for the woman to make an informed decision that is right for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called investigative journalism. It's how we catch monsters. It's pretty much the opposite of propaganda, which is what baby killers rely on to hide what they're doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's what has people that is PRO abortion all upset. PP was caught. I never though so many people in this country would take the side of medical butchers over the unborn baby/child/human being
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? You didn't see them circle the wagons for Kermit Gosnell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Can you provide the link to said wagons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
Click to expand...


Ok...if that is true, that is *one* wagon - but howabout supplying a link to prove it?

Sorry to disappoint you but none of my friends are *fine* with Gosnell


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Intentionally set up situations to film a half dozen videos with actor and a couple of workers out of some 700 PP clinics discussing expenses in a legal transaction of donating tissue for research.
> 
> Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> There is a high demand of the tissue and only a limited supply.  The research and vaccines save lives, tissue used would otherwise be burned as waste.
> 
> PP does a lot more than abortions to help women.  Congress failed to defund PP.  PP are involved in prenatal care and screening for woman's health issues.  They provide education on options for the woman to make an informed decision that is right for her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called investigative journalism. It's how we catch monsters. It's pretty much the opposite of propaganda, which is what baby killers rely on to hide what they're doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's what has people that is PRO abortion all upset. PP was caught. I never though so many people in this country would take the side of medical butchers over the unborn baby/child/human being
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? You didn't see them circle the wagons for Kermit Gosnell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Can you provide the link to said wagons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
Click to expand...


Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Having failed with their inane Planned Parenthood 'body parts' lie, the ridiculous right has trotted out their equally inane 'Gosnell' lie.


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called investigative journalism. It's how we catch monsters. It's pretty much the opposite of propaganda, which is what baby killers rely on to hide what they're doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's what has people that is PRO abortion all upset. PP was caught. I never though so many people in this country would take the side of medical butchers over the unborn baby/child/human being
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? You didn't see them circle the wagons for Kermit Gosnell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Can you provide the link to said wagons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
Click to expand...

How the hell were they not accessible? And why is it wrong to terminate a late term fetus that is still on it's mothers "life support"?


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called investigative journalism. It's how we catch monsters. It's pretty much the opposite of propaganda, which is what baby killers rely on to hide what they're doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's what has people that is PRO abortion all upset. PP was caught. I never though so many people in this country would take the side of medical butchers over the unborn baby/child/human being
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What? You didn't see them circle the wagons for Kermit Gosnell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Can you provide the link to said wagons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
Click to expand...

No, Gosnell is what happens when you make human rights violations and murder legal.


----------



## Coyote

If a woman wants to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy she will find a way to do it. If it's not safe, legal and available she will probably die in the process. The people who pretend it's "all about the woman's health" are lying - to themselves, to the public, to the women they pretend to serve. It's not about the woman's health - it's about ending abortion by making it as inaccessable and restrictive as possible.

Regulating the industry - and it is already regulated - doesn't mean adding even more stringent requirements (requirements that similar clinics are not forced to meet) - it's by enforcing the ones that exist so that clinics like Gosnell are closed down. But that is not what they care about.

Defunding PP is part of the attempt to close down PP and in doing so, ensuring that poor women will have an even more difficult time getting healthcare or getting an abortion. Rich people have options, poor people don't. And they are the ones who will be disproportionately affected because they are one who can least afford to have more children. Ironically - the same ones calling for defunding PP are also the voices calling to cut welfare and stigmatize unwed mothers. So...you force them to have the child, cut off avenues of help, and them damn them.

But..."it's all about women's health".


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's what has people that is PRO abortion all upset. PP was caught. I never though so many people in this country would take the side of medical butchers over the unborn baby/child/human being
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? You didn't see them circle the wagons for Kermit Gosnell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Can you provide the link to said wagons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the hell were they not accessible? And why is it wrong to terminate a late term fetus that is still on it's mothers "life support"?
Click to expand...

They were available. More baby killing lies.


----------



## BlueGin

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Having failed with their inane Planned Parenthood 'body parts' lie, the ridiculous right has trotted out their equally inane 'Gosnell' lie.


What's the Gosnell lie?


----------



## koshergrl

Planned Parenthood sent women to Gosnell, rather than telling them they were too far along for safe, or legal, abortion. Generally at the behest of the women's abusers.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? You didn't see them circle the wagons for Kermit Gosnell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Can you provide the link to said wagons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the hell were they not accessible? And why is it wrong to terminate a late term fetus that is still on it's mothers "life support"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were available. More baby killing lies.
Click to expand...


Stringent laws that force many clinics to close, increasing the distances a woman may have to go to get an abortion, mandatory waiting periods - necessitating either multiple nights in a hotel or more than one lengthy trip - all of which can push a pregnancy to the point where it might be riskier or more difficult or impossible to obtain an abortion.  But of course you know that because it's part of your strategy.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Planned Parenthood sent women to Gosnell, rather than telling them they were too far along for safe, or legal, abortion. Generally at the behest of the women's abusers.



proof?


----------



## BlueGin

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's what has people that is PRO abortion all upset. PP was caught. I never though so many people in this country would take the side of medical butchers over the unborn baby/child/human being
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What? You didn't see them circle the wagons for Kermit Gosnell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Can you provide the link to said wagons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Gosnell is what happens when you make human rights violations and murder legal.
Click to expand...


And won't allow safety regulations in abortion clinics.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> If a woman wants to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy she will find a way to do it. If it's not safe, legal and available she will probably die in the process. The people who pretend it's "all about the woman's health" are lying - to themselves, to the public, to the women they pretend to serve. It's not about the woman's health - it's about ending abortion by making it as inaccessable and restrictive as possible.
> 
> Regulating the industry - and it is already regulated - doesn't mean adding even more stringent requirements (requirements that similar clinics are not forced to meet) - it's by enforcing the ones that exist so that clinics like Gosnell are closed down. But that is not what they care about.
> 
> Defunding PP is part of the attempt to close down PP and in doing so, ensuring that poor women will have an even more difficult time getting healthcare or getting an abortion. Rich people have options, poor people don't. And they are the ones who will be disproportionately affected because they are one who can least afford to have more children. Ironically - the same ones calling for defunding PP are also the voices calling to cut welfare and stigmatize unwed mothers. So...you force them to have the child, cut off avenues of help, and them damn them.
> 
> But..."it's all about women's health".


All lies generated by propagandists who view women as property.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood sent women to Gosnell, rather than telling them they were too far along for safe, or legal, abortion. Generally at the behest of the women's abusers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proof?
Click to expand...

Read the judgement. Again, you dishonest baby killing hag.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a woman wants to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy she will find a way to do it. If it's not safe, legal and available she will probably die in the process. The people who pretend it's "all about the woman's health" are lying - to themselves, to the public, to the women they pretend to serve. It's not about the woman's health - it's about ending abortion by making it as inaccessable and restrictive as possible.
> 
> Regulating the industry - and it is already regulated - doesn't mean adding even more stringent requirements (requirements that similar clinics are not forced to meet) - it's by enforcing the ones that exist so that clinics like Gosnell are closed down. But that is not what they care about.
> 
> Defunding PP is part of the attempt to close down PP and in doing so, ensuring that poor women will have an even more difficult time getting healthcare or getting an abortion. Rich people have options, poor people don't. And they are the ones who will be disproportionately affected because they are one who can least afford to have more children. Ironically - the same ones calling for defunding PP are also the voices calling to cut welfare and stigmatize unwed mothers. So...you force them to have the child, cut off avenues of help, and them damn them.
> 
> But..."it's all about women's health".
> 
> 
> 
> All lies generated by propagandists who view women as property.
Click to expand...


You're the one that thinks of them as baby factories and ambulatory incubators


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood sent women to Gosnell, rather than telling them they were too far along for safe, or legal, abortion. Generally at the behest of the women's abusers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the judgement. Again, you dishonest baby killing hag.
Click to expand...


Ok, you have no evidence to back up your claim.


----------



## Coyote

BlueGin said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What? You didn't see them circle the wagons for Kermit Gosnell?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Can you provide the link to said wagons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Gosnell is what happens when you make human rights violations and murder legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And won't allow safety regulations in abortion clinics.
Click to expand...


Gosnell was breaking the law - his practice was illegal and violating currently mandated safety regulations.

Safety regulations ARE allowed.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Can you provide the link to said wagons?
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the hell were they not accessible? And why is it wrong to terminate a late term fetus that is still on it's mothers "life support"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were available. More baby killing lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stringent laws that force many clinics to close, increasing the distances a woman may have to go to get an abortion, mandatory waiting periods - necessitating either multiple nights in a hotel or more than one lengthy trip - all of which can push a pregnancy to the point where it might be riskier or more difficult or impossible to obtain an abortion.  But of course you know that because it's part of your strategy.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. It isn't 'stringent' to require a license and admitting privileges. It's only stringent when you have butchers, frauds, charlatans and untrained ghouls doing the killing. As planned parenthood does. Nobody decent does that work. They're the dregs of humanity that should never be allowed to dig around between women's legs, let alone be allowed to drug them and kill their babies.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the hell were they not accessible? And why is it wrong to terminate a late term fetus that is still on it's mothers "life support"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were available. More baby killing lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stringent laws that force many clinics to close, increasing the distances a woman may have to go to get an abortion, mandatory waiting periods - necessitating either multiple nights in a hotel or more than one lengthy trip - all of which can push a pregnancy to the point where it might be riskier or more difficult or impossible to obtain an abortion.  But of course you know that because it's part of your strategy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. It isn't 'stringent' to require a license and admitting privileges. It's only stringent when you have butchers, frauds, charlatans and untrained ghouls doing the killing. As planned parenthood does. Nobody decent does that work. They're the dregs of humanity that should never be allowed to dig around between women's legs, let alone be allowed to drug them and kill their babies.
Click to expand...


They are licensed.  Cosmetic surgery clinics and liposuction clinics don't require admitting priveledges.  Neither do podiatrist clinics.  A lot don't.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood sent women to Gosnell, rather than telling them they were too far along for safe, or legal, abortion. Generally at the behest of the women's abusers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proof?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the judgement. Again, you dishonest baby killing hag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, you have no evidence to back up your claim.
Click to expand...

It's all in the judgement which I plastered all over this place, and you read. So again, you prove you are a disgusting liar who approves of killing vulnerable women and infants....and who pretends to be innocent of understanding when we here all know you know exactly what the judgement said. It was scathing and named planned parenthood as responsible.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> 
> 
> No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tube is artificial feed.  Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath.  Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days.  This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
> Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
> Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She really was not alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. *A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
Click to expand...

Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_

That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.



sakinago said:


> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question


You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.

The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.


----------



## koshergrl

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell were they not accessible? And why is it wrong to terminate a late term fetus that is still on it's mothers "life support"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were available. More baby killing lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stringent laws that force many clinics to close, increasing the distances a woman may have to go to get an abortion, mandatory waiting periods - necessitating either multiple nights in a hotel or more than one lengthy trip - all of which can push a pregnancy to the point where it might be riskier or more difficult or impossible to obtain an abortion.  But of course you know that because it's part of your strategy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. It isn't 'stringent' to require a license and admitting privileges. It's only stringent when you have butchers, frauds, charlatans and untrained ghouls doing the killing. As planned parenthood does. Nobody decent does that work. They're the dregs of humanity that should never be allowed to dig around between women's legs, let alone be allowed to drug them and kill their babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are licensed.  Cosmetic surgery clinics and liposuction clinics don't require admitting priveledges.  Neither do podiatrist clinics.  A lot don't.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. Which is why the legit medical community shuns them.


----------



## Jroc

i don't think the Babies volunteered to be "cadavers"  


“INTACT FETAL CADAVERS”


----------



## BlueGin

Coyote said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Can you provide the link to said wagons?
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Gosnell is what happens when you make human rights violations and murder legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And won't allow safety regulations in abortion clinics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosnell was breaking the law - his practice was illegal and violating currently mandated safety regulations.
> 
> Safety regulations ARE allowed.
Click to expand...


And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.


----------



## koshergrl

BlueGin said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Gosnell is what happens when you make human rights violations and murder legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And won't allow safety regulations in abortion clinics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosnell was breaking the law - his practice was illegal and violating currently mandated safety regulations.
> 
> Safety regulations ARE allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.
Click to expand...

And Planned Parenthood providers (multiple) continued to send vulnerable, ready to pop women there, though they knew. Because they don't care what happens to those women, as long as their babies get dead.


----------



## JoeB131

Stephanie said:


> whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus. you people are sick in the head and they should use all the people who supports and works at PP as specimens for body parts. The brains won't be usable so they toss them in the garbage...... We'll refer to you as a fetus when we write about how heroic you were



As Soapdrop pointed out, 'we are going to have a baby" is something that is going to happen in the future.  

If htey actually want it to. 

If they don't want it, they say, "I need to take care of that thing on Tuesday." 

We considered using Conservatives for brain donors, but they didn't have any.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.



Yes they were.  His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.  

Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America.  Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## sakinago

Coyote said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Can you provide the link to said wagons?
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the hell were they not accessible? And why is it wrong to terminate a late term fetus that is still on it's mothers "life support"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were available. More baby killing lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stringent laws that force many clinics to close, increasing the distances a woman may have to go to get an abortion, mandatory waiting periods - necessitating either multiple nights in a hotel or more than one lengthy trip - all of which can push a pregnancy to the point where it might be riskier or more difficult or impossible to obtain an abortion.  But of course you know that because it's part of your strategy.
Click to expand...

Gosnell is from Philly, PP is all over Philly


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> i don't think the Babies volunteered to be "cadavers"



They didn't object, either. 

Oh, yeah, and they weren't "Babies", they were fetuses, but don't let that stop you.


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb was in full cry defending him. Someone was on here today pretending justice went awry in the Gosnell case. Your friends are perfectly fine with gosnell....as were the PP clinics that continued to send women to him to be cut up, drugged and killed....despite the fact they knew the situation. I imagine they got a commission....he charged around 2000 to chop them up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How the hell were they not accessible? And why is it wrong to terminate a late term fetus that is still on it's mothers "life support"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were available. More baby killing lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stringent laws that force many clinics to close, increasing the distances a woman may have to go to get an abortion, mandatory waiting periods - necessitating either multiple nights in a hotel or more than one lengthy trip - all of which can push a pregnancy to the point where it might be riskier or more difficult or impossible to obtain an abortion.  But of course you know that because it's part of your strategy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gosnell is from Philly, PP is all over Philly
Click to expand...

Women went to gosnell because planned parenthood funneled them there.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Pretty much sums it up....


----------



## JoeB131

Pretty much sums it up.


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> 
> 
> No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tube is artificial feed.  Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath.  Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days.  This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
> Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
> Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She really was not alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. *A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you. And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
Click to expand...

These ghouls don't see anything wrong with it at any stage of development. They're down will gassing the weak, halt, lame, and poor.


----------



## BlueGin

koshergrl said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gosnell is what happens when safe abortions are not accessible in a timely manner.  Women will continue to find a way, even through unsafe means when that is all that is left for them.
> 
> 
> 
> How the hell were they not accessible? And why is it wrong to terminate a late term fetus that is still on it's mothers "life support"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were available. More baby killing lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stringent laws that force many clinics to close, increasing the distances a woman may have to go to get an abortion, mandatory waiting periods - necessitating either multiple nights in a hotel or more than one lengthy trip - all of which can push a pregnancy to the point where it might be riskier or more difficult or impossible to obtain an abortion.  But of course you know that because it's part of your strategy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gosnell is from Philly, PP is all over Philly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Women went to gosnell because planned parenthood funneled them there.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure they didn't realize untrained and uncertified staff would be hacking them up and leaving baby remains in their womb with the blessing of the local state government.


----------



## PK1

Coyote said:


> If a woman wants to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy she will find a way to do it. If it's not safe, legal and available she will probably die in the process. The people who pretend it's "all about the woman's health" are lying - to themselves, to the public, to the women they pretend to serve. It's not about the woman's health - it's about ending abortion by making it as inaccessable and restrictive as possible.
> 
> Regulating the industry - and it is already regulated - doesn't mean adding even more stringent requirements (requirements that similar clinics are not forced to meet) - it's by enforcing the ones that exist so that clinics like Gosnell are closed down. But that is not what they care about.
> 
> Defunding PP is part of the attempt to close down PP and in doing so, ensuring that poor women will have an even more difficult time getting healthcare or getting an abortion. Rich people have options, poor people don't. And they are the ones who will be disproportionately affected because they are one who can least afford to have more children. Ironically - the same ones calling for defunding PP are also the voices calling to cut welfare and stigmatize unwed mothers. So...you force them to have the child, cut off avenues of help, and them damn them.
> 
> But..."it's all about women's health".



---
Good post. Agree with your view:

"_Rich people have options, poor people don't. ... Ironically - the same ones calling for defunding PP are also the voices calling to cut welfare and stigmatize unwed mothers. So...you force them to have the child, cut off avenues of help, and them damn them"_

Those opposed to abortion seem to focus on their own religious preference rather than the plight of unfortunate/poor women with limited choices.
It's sad that these egocentric "pro-life" nazis don't realize their *hypocrisy*.


----------



## BlueGin

JoeB131 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were.  His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.
> 
> Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America.  Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...


What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.


----------



## PK1

BlueGin said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were.  His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.
> 
> Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America.  Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.
Click to expand...


---
The "_atrocities against women_" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
A rather egocentric view.


----------



## BlueGin

PK1 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were.  His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.
> 
> Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America.  Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> The "_atrocities against women_" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
> A rather egocentric view.
Click to expand...


Must be why progressives fought tooth and nail to keep Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors from being investigated for years.


----------



## JFish123

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PK1

BlueGin said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were.  His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.
> 
> Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America.  Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> The "_atrocities against women_" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
> A rather egocentric view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be why progressives fought tooth and nail to keep Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors from being investigated for years.
Click to expand...


---
I don't advocate what Gosnell did with his *very limited resources*, but I sympathize with his attempts to help poor families with limited choices.

That's where *PP* comes in ... To provide *better, safer options* to women in need of assistance before becoming unwanted mothers with limited resources & no sympathy from Cons.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

The official snack of Planned Parenthood


----------



## PK1

SassyIrishLass said:


> The official snack of Planned Parenthood



---
Just goes to show how you focus on *crap* instead of the plight of unfortunate women in need of assistance.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

PK1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The official snack of Planned Parenthood
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Just goes to show how you focus on *crap* instead of the plight of unfortunate women in need of assistance.
Click to expand...


Save the "war on women" and "poor unfortunate souls" crap. I'm not buying it


----------



## koshergrl

PK1 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were.  His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.
> 
> Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America.  Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> The "_atrocities against women_" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
> A rather egocentric view.
Click to expand...

 






Ambulance Transports Woman from Troubled Jackson Mississippi Abortion Clinic


----------



## BlueGin

PK1 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were.  His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.
> 
> Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America.  Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> The "_atrocities against women_" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
> A rather egocentric view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be why progressives fought tooth and nail to keep Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors from being investigated for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> I don't advocate what Gosnell did with his *very limited resources*, but I sympathize with his attempts to help poor families with limited choices.
> 
> That's where *PP* comes in ... To provide *better, safer options* to women in need of assistance before becoming unwanted mothers with limited resources & no sympathy from Cons.
Click to expand...

Sickos that keep baby corpses in jars as trophies are not there to help the down trodden. They just find them easy targets.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> No she was not artificially kept breathing, or artificially feeding, didn't think there was such a thing. She had a feeding tube, so if you are on a feeding tube, your family can decide for you to stop that treatment? What if it's a breast feeding baby? That's a mothers body it's living off of. That's where it gets it's nourishment and immunity. Does the mom then not have the choice to stop giving breast milk to the child? Why not? Explain to me where the difference is, sell me on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tube is artificial feed.  Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath.  Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days.  This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
> Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
> Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She really was not alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. *A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
Click to expand...

The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?


----------



## WinterBorn

BlueGin said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were.  His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.
> 
> Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America.  Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> The "_atrocities against women_" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
> A rather egocentric view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be why progressives fought tooth and nail to keep Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors from being investigated for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> I don't advocate what Gosnell did with his *very limited resources*, but I sympathize with his attempts to help poor families with limited choices.
> 
> That's where *PP* comes in ... To provide *better, safer options* to women in need of assistance before becoming unwanted mothers with limited resources & no sympathy from Cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sickos that keep baby corpses in jars as trophies are not there to help the down trodden. They just find them easy targets.
Click to expand...


Who is it who keeps baby corpses in jars as trophies?


----------



## WinterBorn

JFish123 said:


> View attachment 46595
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



That depends on whether there are alternative clinics available every where there are PP clinics.


----------



## BlueGin

WinterBorn said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> The "_atrocities against women_" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
> A rather egocentric view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be why progressives fought tooth and nail to keep Kermit Gosnell's house of horrors from being investigated for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> I don't advocate what Gosnell did with his *very limited resources*, but I sympathize with his attempts to help poor families with limited choices.
> 
> That's where *PP* comes in ... To provide *better, safer options* to women in need of assistance before becoming unwanted mothers with limited resources & no sympathy from Cons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sickos that keep baby corpses in jars as trophies are not there to help the down trodden. They just find them easy targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is it who keeps baby corpses in jars as trophies?
Click to expand...


Kermit Gosnell did.


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tube is artificial feed.  Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath.  Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days.  This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
> Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
> Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She really was not alive.
> 
> 
> 
> Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. *A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
Click to expand...

 They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.


----------



## BlueGin

koshergrl said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. *A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.*
> 
> 
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.
Click to expand...


Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.

Progressives are sick individuals.


----------



## WinterBorn

BlueGin said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
> 
> 
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.
> 
> Progressives are sick individuals.
Click to expand...


Then Gosnell, or whomever was in charge of that clinic, needs to be in prison.


----------



## koshergrl

BlueGin said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
> 
> 
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.
> 
> Progressives are sick individuals.
Click to expand...

 
Oh, it's not just Gosnell's victims. It's standard operating procedure.


----------



## WinterBorn

koshergrl said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> 
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.
> 
> Progressives are sick individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, it's not just Gosnell's victims. It's standard operating procedure.
Click to expand...


If  baby takes a single breath and then is killed, it is murder.  The law is clear.   Prosecute those who do it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BlueGin said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
> 
> 
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.
> 
> Progressives are sick individuals.
Click to expand...


Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of  Gosnell's actions?


----------



## BlueGin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> 
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.
> 
> Progressives are sick individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of  Gosnell's actions?
Click to expand...


See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads.  They didn't want him prosecuted.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BlueGin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.
> 
> Progressives are sick individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of  Gosnell's actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads.  They didn't want him prosecuted.
Click to expand...


Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.


----------



## BlueGin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> 
> 
> They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.
> 
> Progressives are sick individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of  Gosnell's actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads.  They didn't want him prosecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.
Click to expand...

Tough titties. Progressive love to deny their past arguments when it suits them. Especially when it makes them look like assholes.


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> 
> 
> They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.
> 
> Progressives are sick individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of  Gosnell's actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads.  They didn't want him prosecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.
Click to expand...

This is an ongoing conversation. I don't race around to prove over and over what is on the site, or that's all we'd do all day long, as dishonest baby killers lie and pretend they have no recollection of convos they participate in.


----------



## BlueGin

koshergrl said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.
> 
> Progressives are sick individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of  Gosnell's actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads.  They didn't want him prosecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is an ongoing conversation. I don't race around to prove over and over what is on the site, or that's all we'd do all day long, as dishonest baby killers lie and pretend they have no recollection of convos they participate in.
Click to expand...

Exactly


----------



## BullKurtz

Abortionists make BIG money....I suggest they should face a BIG risk in return....George Tiller for example:


----------



## koshergrl

BlueGin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.
> 
> Progressives are sick individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of  Gosnell's actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads.  They didn't want him prosecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tough titties. Progressive love to deny their past arguments when it suits them. Especially when it makes them look like assholes.
Click to expand...

 Exactly.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

BlueGin said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't think it's wrong. That's why they support clinics like Gosnell's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.
> 
> Progressives are sick individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of  Gosnell's actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads.  They didn't want him prosecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tough titties. Progressive love to deny their past arguments when it suits them. Especially when it makes them look like assholes.
Click to expand...


Thank you for confirming that you cant substantiate any of your claims.


----------



## BlueGin

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.
> 
> Progressives are sick individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of  Gosnell's actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads.  They didn't want him prosecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tough titties. Progressive love to deny their past arguments when it suits them. Especially when it makes them look like assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming that you cant substantiate any of your claims.
Click to expand...


I can verify everything I say... Or i wouldn't say it. I just don't do it at the whims of dishonest pricks.


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> 
> 
> So terry chiavo wasn't viable to eat without a tube... Therefore husband had every right to remove it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was not alive, she was being artificially kept fed and breathing.  She had irreversible brain damage.  Why should she have had to be kept under those conditions?  That is not living.  Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She should not have been kept so long like that.  She should have been freed long before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, she was alive. That's why they had to withhold food and water to kill her. Like I said...weak helpless people have shortened lifespans when a progressive notices them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her brain said other wise
> 
> View attachment 46455
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the old 'only things I don't want to kill are alive' definition of life. So reminiscent of bygone ages, when those marked for death were labeled as less than human, therefore not granted human rights.
Click to expand...

 
Hey, demonization IS kind of the leftist _raison d'etre_, after all.  Anything else would require a level of maturity and depth that's really beyond them.


----------



## WinterBorn

BullKurtz said:


> Abortionists make BIG money....I suggest they should face a BIG risk in return....George Tiller for example:



Feel free to go out and murder someone in the name of pro-life.  lol

Then you could go to prison.  I'm sure you would enjoy it there.


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Many of Gosnell's victims were born first then stabbed to death. Progressives still don't consider them human babies even though they were breathing air outside the womb.
> 
> Progressives are sick individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of  Gosnell's actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads.  They didn't want him prosecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tough titties. Progressive love to deny their past arguments when it suits them. Especially when it makes them look like assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming that you cant substantiate any of your claims.
Click to expand...

 I don't need to race around double-verifying stuff that everybody here remembers and can access for themselves. I will accept that you are also a Gosnell apologist based on your denial that they exist, despite the fact that they are milling around this site right now. Probably private messaging you.


----------



## sakinago

koshergrl said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any documentation of cases where "liberals" condoned any of  Gosnell's actions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads.  They didn't want him prosecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell no! When you present a statement allegedly of fact, you're expected to be able to back it up when and where that statement is made. Others should not have to research it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tough titties. Progressive love to deny their past arguments when it suits them. Especially when it makes them look like assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming that you cant substantiate any of your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to race around double-verifying stuff that everybody here remembers and can access for themselves. I will accept that you are also a Gosnell apologist based on your denial that they exist, despite the fact that they are milling around this site right now. Probably private messaging you.
Click to expand...

They should be if they want to be consistent, what is the difference if he kills it on the inside or the outside? Just bc it respires with it's own lungs as opposed to it's mothers blood stream


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tube is artificial feed.  Shiavo could not swallow, she frequently had to have her lungs cleared and her trac was there to help assist her breath.  Chest tube was to drain fluids and clear her lungs every few days.  This was ongoing and artificial or she would not have been able to breath.
> Much of the body function, that work when we sleep and are involuntary come from the brain stem and not the brain itself, a remnant of our dinosaur brain.
> Her brain was a shriveled mass of dead cells.  She really was not alive.
> 
> 
> 
> Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. *A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
Click to expand...

Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.


----------



## koshergrl

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. *A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.*
> 
> 
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
Click to expand...

 
Actually, no he's not. If he doesn't have a person to provide him care he will die.


----------



## BullKurtz

Faun said:


> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.



The difference being that Teri was beaten into a severe coma by her husband and as long as she was alive he could have been tried and sentenced for it.  He judge-shopped until he found a black robe who'd finish her off......They both should be tried for murder.


----------



## WinterBorn

BullKurtz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that Teri was beaten into a severe coma by her husband and as long as she was alive he could have been tried and sentenced for it.  He judge-shopped until he found a black robe who'd finish her off......They both should be tried for murder.
Click to expand...


Any evidence for that?  I never saw any medical testimony of any evidence of domestic violence.


----------



## guno

BullKurtz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that Teri was beaten into a severe coma by her husband and as long as she was alive he could have been tried and sentenced for it.  He judge-shopped until he found a black robe who'd finish her off......They both should be tried for murder.
Click to expand...



More insane talking points with no proof


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dysphasia is not a sign of brain death, nor is pulmonary fluid retention. Both are quite common in pretty much any inpatient hospital. *A chest tube, feeding tube, and trach for suction is not considered life support.*
> 
> 
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the mis-diagnosis of brain death happens all the time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can a mother refuse to breast feed, or formula feed (baby had no part in making/buying formula)a child and still maintain the right to choice? Can a father say that he does not want the child, wants a abortion and not have to pay for it. Can family remove feeding tube of a coma patient not on life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
Click to expand...

Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester


----------



## WinterBorn

WinterBorn said:


> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that Teri was beaten into a severe coma by her husband and as long as she was alive he could have been tried and sentenced for it.  He judge-shopped until he found a black robe who'd finish her off......They both should be tried for murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any evidence for that?  I never saw any medical testimony of any evidence of domestic violence.
Click to expand...


I guess not.


----------



## Faun

BullKurtz said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that Teri was beaten into a severe coma by her husband and as long as she was alive he could have been tried and sentenced for it.  He judge-shopped until he found a black robe who'd finish her off......They both should be tried for murder.
Click to expand...

She was not, ya raving lunatic.


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
> 
> 
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no he's not. If he doesn't have a person to provide him care he will die.
Click to expand...

Viable in the sense that it reaches a point where it can survive outside the woman's womb.

Compared to Teri Schiavo, whose condition was never going to improve.


----------



## Faun

WinterBorn said:


> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that Teri was beaten into a severe coma by her husband and as long as she was alive he could have been tried and sentenced for it.  He judge-shopped until he found a black robe who'd finish her off......They both should be tried for murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any evidence for that?  I never saw any medical testimony of any evidence of domestic violence.
Click to expand...

That's because there is none. Rightards are raving lunatics who make shot up because reality is not on their side.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _[Emphasis add]_ You really should learn the facts before you spew such nonsense....
> 
> *765.101  Definitions*
> 
> (10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, *including artificially provided sustenance and hydration*, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.​
> _[Irrelevant anecdotal story eliminated]_ Sure it happens. But it didn't happen in Schiavo's case. The autopsy confirmed the diagnosis and the prognosis. What's your next line of stupidity?
> 
> Again .... yes, a mother can refuse to breast feed or formula feed her baby. Who knows what your point is?
> 
> 
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester
Click to expand...

Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> 
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.
Click to expand...




Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life prolonging procedure vs life support, there is a difference between ordinary and extraordinary procedures, notice you don't care to post that, just any definition to support you.
> 
> 
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I picked chaivo for a reason I figured that you would agree, so why not agree with removing feeding from a child, elderly w severe dementia, pretty much anyone not in charge of their decision. Notice I made the distinction of ordinary and extraordinary. The bigger question is why does it become wrong to have a late term abortion? It's still on "life support" received from the mother. That's the main question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.
Click to expand...

uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe  consistent


----------



## WinterBorn

Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone.  It turned to liquid.  There is no recovery from that.  Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow.  Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed.  She was NOT going to recover.


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone.  It turned to liquid.  There is no recovery from that.  Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow.  Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed.  She was NOT going to recover.


Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> 
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Florida law does not differentiate. Perhaps you don't understand, _*"any medical procedure ....  which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function."*_
> 
> That definition qualifies Teri Schiavo who required a feeding tube to remain alive after losing the "spontaneous vital function" of swallowing.
> 
> You didn't ask about removing feeding entirely from a baby. You asked about two specific foods; breast milk and formula. If you want to change your question now from that to not feeding a baby at all, the answer is no, unless one want to face child neglect charges, they cannot starve their baby.
> 
> The difference in the Schiavo case from a baby is that Teri, while still cognizant, purportedly conveyed to her husband that she would not want her life sustained in such a fasion. A baby, incapable of rendering such a decision, is forced by the government to be kept alive in cases where the parent(s), or other guardian(s), refuse to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe  consistent
Click to expand...

Why play the 'what if' game when we know what doctors actually said?

* "This is as severe brain damage as I've ever seen," said Dr. Leon Prockop, a professor and former chairman of neurology at the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa, upon viewing the scans.

* Dr. Walter Bradley, chairman of neurology at the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine, added: "I doubt there's any activity going on in the higher levels of her brain."

* A doctor appointed by the court concluded she is in a "persistent vegetative state" and has no chance of recovery.

* "The chance that this person is going to recover is about zero. The longer a person goes on, the less likely it is they will recover," Dr. Michael Pulley


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> 
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> The husband waited ten years to say that and she took 2 weeks to die, but I understand the schiavo case. So you agree that nutrition, ventilation, etc. is life support. And you believe that it is the mothers body, so she has the right withdrawal nutrition, ventilation, etc, from the fetus correct? So why does it become wrong to do it late term? Why is that women's right to her body taken away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because at that point, the child is viable to live on its own outside of the mother's womb. The same could not have been said of Teri Schiavo, whose prognosis determined her condition to be irreversible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define viability, I already had this discussion earlier. And arist2chat answered saying the baby is receiving support from the mother, it's the mothers right to choose to cut that off. Which is still true in the 3rd trimester
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Viable in that it can survive outside the woman's womb. Viability being a key factor in the Roe v. Wade decision that protecting a viable life is compelling reason to protect life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery in 3 months with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever if you can see where I'm going with this. Nowbe  consistent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why play the 'what if' game when we know what doctors actually said?
> 
> * "This is as severe brain damage as I've ever seen," said Dr. Leon Prockop, a professor and former chairman of neurology at the University of South Florida College of Medicine in Tampa, upon viewing the scans.
> 
> * Dr. Walter Bradley, chairman of neurology at the University of Miami's Miller School of Medicine, added: "I doubt there's any activity going on in the higher levels of her brain."
> 
> * A doctor appointed by the court concluded she is in a "persistent vegetative state" and has no chance of recovery.
> 
> * "The chance that this person is going to recover is about zero. The longer a person goes on, the less likely it is they will recover," Dr. Michael Pulley
Click to expand...

How do you not see what I'm getting at? 

Ok so...hypothetically what if doctors said full recovery in the timespan of a trimester?? Picking up what I'm throwing down? Is it ok to then pull the plug on schiavo


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone.  It turned to liquid.  There is no recovery from that.  Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow.  Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed.  She was NOT going to recover.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?
Click to expand...

Who knows where you _think_ you're going with this since you're basing your destination on the fallacy that a 27 week embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive.


----------



## Manonthestreet




----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone.  It turned to liquid.  There is no recovery from that.  Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow.  Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed.  She was NOT going to recover.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows where you _think_ you're going with this since you're basing your destination on the fallacy that a 27 week embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive.
Click to expand...

That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it. 

Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug. 

Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.



Gosnell was arrested, prosecuted and they even tried to hang 100 murders on him when he only really committed one.  

Fact is, all those women went to his clinic voluntarily, knowing he was a hack because they didn't have other options.  

Now, if we had universal health care and no Hyde amendment, that would be another story.


----------



## JoeB131

BlueGin said:


> See the Kermit Gosnell discussion threads. They didn't want him prosecuted.



I had no problem with prosecuting him for dealing drugs, killing the 43 year old patient, or running an unsanitary or unsafe clinic. 

I had a huge problem with pointing at medical waste and saying, "That's murder!"  

And so did the Court, as they took the 100 claims of such "homicides", and threw all but three of them out.  

Then the prosecutors gave Gosnell a sweetheart sentencing deal if he promised not to appeal the Medical Waste convictions.  

so they essentially took a case where they still could have put this guy in prison for life with a plea, and instead wasted millions of dollars to get a ruling that medical waste is people.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone.  It turned to liquid.  There is no recovery from that.  Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow.  Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed.  She was NOT going to recover.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows where you _think_ you're going with this since you're basing your destination on the fallacy that a 27 week embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
Click to expand...

Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo. 

....... it's not 98%.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone.  It turned to liquid.  There is no recovery from that.  Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow.  Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed.  She was NOT going to recover.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows where you _think_ you're going with this since you're basing your destination on the fallacy that a 27 week embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
Click to expand...

Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM. 

And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone.  It turned to liquid.  There is no recovery from that.  Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow.  Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed.  She was NOT going to recover.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?
Click to expand...


Unless where you are going with this has bearing on the topic of Planned Parenthood trafficking in body parts, I do not see the relevance.

You are still wanting to make this about abortion.  The thread and the story are about the accusations that PP is selling body parts for profit.  If the story had been about claiming that PP was performing abortions, there would be no story.


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone.  It turned to liquid.  There is no recovery from that.  Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow.  Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed.  She was NOT going to recover.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows where you _think_ you're going with this since you're basing your destination on the fallacy that a 27 week embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
Click to expand...


Sakinago, throughout this thread you have wanted the topic to be abortion.  I'm beginning to think you are avoiding the actual topic.


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone.  It turned to liquid.  There is no recovery from that.  Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow.  Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed.  She was NOT going to recover.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows where you _think_ you're going with this since you're basing your destination on the fallacy that a 27 week embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
Click to expand...


And suppose that the gov't required that the doctor work that 3 months for free.   How many conservatives would be in an uproar that the gov't was taking away the doctor's rights?


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows where you _think_ you're going with this since you're basing your destination on the fallacy that a 27 week embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sakinago, throughout this thread you have wanted the topic to be abortion.  I'm beginning to think you are avoiding the actual topic.
Click to expand...

I told you what I feel about it, that if that is how you feel about abortion then sure donate the parts. But when you don't feel that way, it's like saying well we robbed a bank, forget about that though, what do we do with the money now? And the other side is saying, wait you can't go robbing banks. If you don't recognize the other side then how can you have the debate?

So faun, and winter born too, is it ok for the husband to pull plug on Sherri Tiavo


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows where you _think_ you're going with this since you're basing your destination on the fallacy that a 27 week embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> 
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sakinago, throughout this thread you have wanted the topic to be abortion.  I'm beginning to think you are avoiding the actual topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you what I feel about it, that if that is how you feel about abortion then sure donate the parts. But when you don't feel that way, it's like saying well we robbed a bank, forget about that though, what do we do with the money now? And the other side is saying, wait you can't go robbing banks. If you don't recognize the other side then how can you have the debate?
> 
> So faun, and winter born too, is it ok for the husband to pull plug on Sherri Tiavo
Click to expand...


No, that is a bad analogy.

For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.   

This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sakinago, throughout this thread you have wanted the topic to be abortion.  I'm beginning to think you are avoiding the actual topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you what I feel about it, that if that is how you feel about abortion then sure donate the parts. But when you don't feel that way, it's like saying well we robbed a bank, forget about that though, what do we do with the money now? And the other side is saying, wait you can't go robbing banks. If you don't recognize the other side then how can you have the debate?
> 
> So faun, and winter born too, is it ok for the husband to pull plug on Sherri Tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is a bad analogy.
> 
> For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.
> 
> This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.
Click to expand...

But to pro life folks it is a crime, which is why the analogy works. If you fail to see that, then the debate goes no where for either party


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sakinago, throughout this thread you have wanted the topic to be abortion.  I'm beginning to think you are avoiding the actual topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you what I feel about it, that if that is how you feel about abortion then sure donate the parts. But when you don't feel that way, it's like saying well we robbed a bank, forget about that though, what do we do with the money now? And the other side is saying, wait you can't go robbing banks. If you don't recognize the other side then how can you have the debate?
> 
> So faun, and winter born too, is it ok for the husband to pull plug on Sherri Tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is a bad analogy.
> 
> For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.
> 
> This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.
Click to expand...

Besides it should be an easy enough question to answer. Can the husband pull the plug on Sherri tiavo?


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sakinago, throughout this thread you have wanted the topic to be abortion.  I'm beginning to think you are avoiding the actual topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you what I feel about it, that if that is how you feel about abortion then sure donate the parts. But when you don't feel that way, it's like saying well we robbed a bank, forget about that though, what do we do with the money now? And the other side is saying, wait you can't go robbing banks. If you don't recognize the other side then how can you have the debate?
> 
> So faun, and winter born too, is it ok for the husband to pull plug on Sherri Tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is a bad analogy.
> 
> For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.
> 
> This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But to pro life folks it is a crime, which is why the analogy works. If you fail to see that, then the debate goes no where for either party
Click to expand...


The debate has not been about abortion.  The debate has been about donated parts.   The outrageous claims of the people saying PP is murdering babies in order to profit from selling parts is the debate.


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sakinago, throughout this thread you have wanted the topic to be abortion.  I'm beginning to think you are avoiding the actual topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you what I feel about it, that if that is how you feel about abortion then sure donate the parts. But when you don't feel that way, it's like saying well we robbed a bank, forget about that though, what do we do with the money now? And the other side is saying, wait you can't go robbing banks. If you don't recognize the other side then how can you have the debate?
> 
> So faun, and winter born too, is it ok for the husband to pull plug on Sherri Tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is a bad analogy.
> 
> For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.
> 
> This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides it should be an easy enough question to answer. Can the husband pull the plug on Sherri tiavo?
Click to expand...


Once again, I would answer this with the analogy of requiring the doctor to work all day every day of that 3 months without compensation.


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sakinago, throughout this thread you have wanted the topic to be abortion.  I'm beginning to think you are avoiding the actual topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you what I feel about it, that if that is how you feel about abortion then sure donate the parts. But when you don't feel that way, it's like saying well we robbed a bank, forget about that though, what do we do with the money now? And the other side is saying, wait you can't go robbing banks. If you don't recognize the other side then how can you have the debate?
> 
> So faun, and winter born too, is it ok for the husband to pull plug on Sherri Tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is a bad analogy.
> 
> For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.
> 
> This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides it should be an easy enough question to answer. Can the husband pull the plug on Sherri tiavo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, I would answer this with the analogy of requiring the doctor to work all day every day of that 3 months without compensation.
Click to expand...

The machines are doing the work, and now it turns fiscal again. Is it right or wrong to pull the plug?


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sakinago, throughout this thread you have wanted the topic to be abortion.  I'm beginning to think you are avoiding the actual topic.
> 
> 
> 
> I told you what I feel about it, that if that is how you feel about abortion then sure donate the parts. But when you don't feel that way, it's like saying well we robbed a bank, forget about that though, what do we do with the money now? And the other side is saying, wait you can't go robbing banks. If you don't recognize the other side then how can you have the debate?
> 
> So faun, and winter born too, is it ok for the husband to pull plug on Sherri Tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is a bad analogy.
> 
> For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.
> 
> This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides it should be an easy enough question to answer. Can the husband pull the plug on Sherri tiavo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, I would answer this with the analogy of requiring the doctor to work all day every day of that 3 months without compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The machines are doing the work, and now it turns fiscal again. Is it right or wrong to pull the plug?
Click to expand...


Fiscal?   You are attempting to compare the treatment of an adult in a coma with the decision of a woman about carrying a child inside her body?   No.  I am not playing to that bait.


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sakinago, throughout this thread you have wanted the topic to be abortion.  I'm beginning to think you are avoiding the actual topic.
> 
> 
> 
> I told you what I feel about it, that if that is how you feel about abortion then sure donate the parts. But when you don't feel that way, it's like saying well we robbed a bank, forget about that though, what do we do with the money now? And the other side is saying, wait you can't go robbing banks. If you don't recognize the other side then how can you have the debate?
> 
> So faun, and winter born too, is it ok for the husband to pull plug on Sherri Tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is a bad analogy.
> 
> For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.
> 
> This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides it should be an easy enough question to answer. Can the husband pull the plug on Sherri tiavo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, I would answer this with the analogy of requiring the doctor to work all day every day of that 3 months without compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The machines are doing the work, and now it turns fiscal again. Is it right or wrong to pull the plug?
Click to expand...


If you can come up with machines to take over for the woman and develop the embryo/fetus to term, I am all for it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts"

Again, this is a lie, and the OP is a liar – Planned Parent was not “trafficking in human body parts,” nothing was 'caught.'


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you what I feel about it, that if that is how you feel about abortion then sure donate the parts. But when you don't feel that way, it's like saying well we robbed a bank, forget about that though, what do we do with the money now? And the other side is saying, wait you can't go robbing banks. If you don't recognize the other side then how can you have the debate?
> 
> So faun, and winter born too, is it ok for the husband to pull plug on Sherri Tiavo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is a bad analogy.
> 
> For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.
> 
> This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides it should be an easy enough question to answer. Can the husband pull the plug on Sherri tiavo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, I would answer this with the analogy of requiring the doctor to work all day every day of that 3 months without compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The machines are doing the work, and now it turns fiscal again. Is it right or wrong to pull the plug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fiscal?   You are attempting to compare the treatment of an adult in a coma with the decision of a woman about carrying a child inside her body?   No.  I am not playing to that bait.
Click to expand...

Yes fiscal, you gave me the scenario of of doctor day and night without pay . And I answered. And yes I am making that comparison, before you were arguing that schiavo was not going to regain any consciousness or recover. if you have that high if a probability of recovery do you pull the plug?


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is a bad analogy.
> 
> For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.
> 
> This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides it should be an easy enough question to answer. Can the husband pull the plug on Sherri tiavo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, I would answer this with the analogy of requiring the doctor to work all day every day of that 3 months without compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The machines are doing the work, and now it turns fiscal again. Is it right or wrong to pull the plug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fiscal?   You are attempting to compare the treatment of an adult in a coma with the decision of a woman about carrying a child inside her body?   No.  I am not playing to that bait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes fiscal, you gave me the scenario of of doctor day and night without pay . And I answered. And yes I am making that comparison, before you were arguing that schiavo was not going to regain any consciousness or recover. if you have that high if a probability of recovery do you pull the plug?
Click to expand...


And you are making this comparison to force anyone in favor of refusing to pull the plug into saying that women should be forced to carry their pregnancy to term.  My analogy about the doctor was not about money, but about forcing someone to do something.


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you what I feel about it, that if that is how you feel about abortion then sure donate the parts. But when you don't feel that way, it's like saying well we robbed a bank, forget about that though, what do we do with the money now? And the other side is saying, wait you can't go robbing banks. If you don't recognize the other side then how can you have the debate?
> 
> So faun, and winter born too, is it ok for the husband to pull plug on Sherri Tiavo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is a bad analogy.
> 
> For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.
> 
> This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides it should be an easy enough question to answer. Can the husband pull the plug on Sherri tiavo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, I would answer this with the analogy of requiring the doctor to work all day every day of that 3 months without compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The machines are doing the work, and now it turns fiscal again. Is it right or wrong to pull the plug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can come up with machines to take over for the woman and develop the embryo/fetus to term, I am all for it.
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered if it is ok to pull the plug with a very very positive prognosis? 

And Now you're going in circles, so why is it no longer a woman's right afte in the third trimester? she still doing all the work there and it is her body.


----------



## Katzndogz

The democrat party of buying and selling black people is still buying and selling black people.  Only this time piece  by piece.


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is a bad analogy.
> 
> For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.
> 
> This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides it should be an easy enough question to answer. Can the husband pull the plug on Sherri tiavo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, I would answer this with the analogy of requiring the doctor to work all day every day of that 3 months without compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The machines are doing the work, and now it turns fiscal again. Is it right or wrong to pull the plug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you can come up with machines to take over for the woman and develop the embryo/fetus to term, I am all for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You still haven't answered if it is ok to pull the plug with a very very positive prognosis?
> 
> And Now you're going in circles, so why is it no longer a woman's right afte in the third trimester? she still doing all the work there and it is her body.
Click to expand...


Because there is a huge difference between forcing a woman to carry a child to term, and unplugging a comatose patient who has a positive prognosis.

And if a third trimester abortion is illegal, the same 3 month time period makes second trimester abortions into the same, and then all abortions are banned.  All this because you want to press the supposition about Terri Schiavo and a hypothetical situation.   But I am not willing to compare the two situations.  Just like you have not been willing to discuss the actual topic of this thread.


----------



## dannyboys

"Would you like dark meat or white meat with the order?"


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that is a bad analogy.
> 
> For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.
> 
> This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.
> 
> 
> 
> Besides it should be an easy enough question to answer. Can the husband pull the plug on Sherri tiavo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, I would answer this with the analogy of requiring the doctor to work all day every day of that 3 months without compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The machines are doing the work, and now it turns fiscal again. Is it right or wrong to pull the plug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fiscal?   You are attempting to compare the treatment of an adult in a coma with the decision of a woman about carrying a child inside her body?   No.  I am not playing to that bait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes fiscal, you gave me the scenario of of doctor day and night without pay . And I answered. And yes I am making that comparison, before you were arguing that schiavo was not going to regain any consciousness or recover. if you have that high if a probability of recovery do you pull the plug?
Click to expand...


Let me ask you this, if I had been in an accident and needed a blood transfusion, and you were the only person around with my blood type, can they force you to give your blood?

Or an even better analogy, if someone needs an organ transplant to live, and someone has just died in the same hospital, can the organs be taken without consent?

It is call body autonomy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually there are 5 videos out now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the fifth one on here and I noticed it has been ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that my question to you about why you hate women has been ignored......Isn't that right *Stephanie?*
Click to expand...


Maybe because "Have you stopped beating your wife?" sorts of questions are beneath notice, as are the fucking idiots who ask them.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.



"Strangely silent" = I have my fingers in my ears and am clueless about what people say and do


----------



## Cecilie1200

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we aren't silent on it. You just don't engage in that conversation because your primary focus is to justify the butchery of much older babies, so you only see us here.
Click to expand...


But admittedly, we do tend to be better-inclined toward people who at least WANT a child, instead of viewing it as a nuisance to be flushed away.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that abortions after 20 weeks are extremely uncommon and account for only 1.5 %?
> 
> They are also strictly regulated after 24 weeks.
> 
> These aren't late term abortions being talked about here.
Click to expand...


What aren't?  The ones PP are harvesting for organs?  They kinda have to be later-term by definition, y'know.  It's the only way the organs are large enough to BE harvested.


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Till the fetus is living and breathing apart from the mother's body, it is still up to her what happens to her body.  If she is willing to male the commitment of her body for carrying the fetus and to give birth, that is her choice.  If not, that too is her choice.  Fetus does not live without her cooperation.
> Late term is not simple thing to consider but when the life of the woman or the imminent suffering and death of the fetus is involved, it should be a decision she and her doctor make.  Government and outsiders should not be a part of the decision.
> There is no shortage of infants and children that need good homes in the world.  Telling a woman she has no choice and has to carry and give birth is not your right and should never be.  We are not a population of the verge of extinction that woman should be forced to be baby making machines.  We are horrified by puppy mills but that is what you would force a women to be?
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus. you people are sick in the head and they should use all the people who supports and works at PP as specimens for body parts. The brains won't be usable so they toss them in the garbage...... We'll refer to you as a fetus when we write about how heroic you were
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a good idea. Allow them to do unlimited human experimentation...upon each other. They truly are mentally ill and should be locked away from humanity. They are a threat to it, as everybody is beginning to see. Too late, of course. The damage is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would you prevent a woman from getting pregnant just to produce an organ(s) for a living child that would otherwise die?  Why should you care if waste tissue is used for research.   Both are used to save lives.
Click to expand...


I'm not the least bit concerned about "waste tissue".  So, um . . . what address should I send the guys in lab coats to so they can pick you up?


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus. you people are sick in the head and they should use all the people who supports and works at PP as specimens for body parts. The brains won't be usable so they toss them in the garbage...... We'll refer to you as a fetus when we write about how heroic you were
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a good idea. Allow them to do unlimited human experimentation...upon each other. They truly are mentally ill and should be locked away from humanity. They are a threat to it, as everybody is beginning to see. Too late, of course. The damage is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about human experimentation or experimentation on living beings.  Hyperbole much?  Or just the usual dishonest rhetoric.  If so, I suggest you organize protests against cadever organ and tissue donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but I have already made arrangement for what is viable to be donated to science.  I would be glad for students and scientists to learn from me.  It could save others from suffering or even death. Otherwise I would just be so much worm food.  Why anyone would want their bodies filled with plastic and put in a metal box for a century or more is to me unfathomable.  I don't want people standing over a rock and crying over me.  What a tragic waste.
> 
> I think organ donation should be automatic unless there is a specific reason against it.  It should not be a choice to mark a box for donation but should be a choice to mark a box against it, and should be required to have a medical statement notarized for a reason against to be on file.
> 
> I stopped going to funerals long ago.  Seen far too may buried.  Seen too many die because of hate and prejudice.  Seen too many that could not be saved.  If that makes me a heartless bitch, so be it.  Even those in the medical profession eventually stop crying over every death of their patients.  There are too many still alive that need them more than the dead.  Death is inevitable for all of us.
Click to expand...


I note in passing that you arranged to have your donations made AFTER you die of other causes, rather than arranging to have yourself killed so that we don't have to wait.


----------



## Coyote

koshergrl said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we aren't silent on it. You just don't engage in that conversation because your primary focus is to justify the butchery of much older babies, so you only see us here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strange....I can find zillions of threads here on abortion but in vitro?  No....
> 
> Same when it I look info...no mass protests, no demands being made....no labeling of "baby killer" and "slut" to the women who produced them.
> 
> But I understand your need to move the goalposts.  Suddenly - you draw a distinction between the ages of a fetus.  Why?  Are some more worthy of protection than others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. It's just that the baby murderers don't go around screeching how great it is like they do about PP butcher shops. If you did, you'd find the same people there.
Click to expand...


So where are all your anti-invitro threads?  Why aren't you guys protesting in front of invitro clinics?  Big profits there too.


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it is a question on when it can live on it's own?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the mother was willing and the fetus could be safely removed and transplanted.............but that is not yet a viable option yet.  It is still the woman's seed and up to her if she would give it up.  And if she was to be compensated for giving up tissue?
> 
> There are other causes to get involved in rather than a woman's right to choose if she is ready to be a mother or not.  At what age, education level does she have or loose that right?  If she is raped, does she have to carry the fetus?  If she is undergoing medical treatment, does she have to give that up?  What if she is in school or beginning a new job?  What if there are other circumstances that make it the wrong time or just wrong for her?  When is a woman's body her own?  When do others have no say in what a woman can or chooses what is best for her physically, mentally, financially or moral for her?  Religion should have no place in the law or a woman's right to choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> whatever you do. don't call it a BABY. Don't you know women that goes around telling everyone. hey, we are going to have fetus. you people are sick in the head and they should use all the people who supports and works at PP as specimens for body parts. The brains won't be usable so they toss them in the garbage...... We'll refer to you as a fetus when we write about how heroic you were
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a good idea. Allow them to do unlimited human experimentation...upon each other. They truly are mentally ill and should be locked away from humanity. They are a threat to it, as everybody is beginning to see. Too late, of course. The damage is done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about human experimentation or experimentation on living beings.  Hyperbole much?  Or just the usual dishonest rhetoric.  If so, I suggest you organize protests against cadever organ and tissue donation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but I have already made arrangement for what is viable to be donated to science.  I would be glad for students and scientists to learn from me.  It could save others from suffering or even death. Otherwise I would just be so much worm food.  Why anyone would want their bodies filled with plastic and put in a metal box for a century or more is to me unfathomable.  I don't want people standing over a rock and crying over me.  What a tragic waste.
> 
> I think organ donation should be automatic unless there is a specific reason against it.  It should not be a choice to mark a box for donation but should be a choice to mark a box against it, and should be required to have a medical statement notarized for a reason against to be on file.
> 
> I stopped going to funerals long ago.  Seen far too may buried.  Seen too many die because of hate and prejudice.  Seen too many that could not be saved.  If that makes me a heartless bitch, so be it.  Even those in the medical profession eventually stop crying over every death of their patients.  There are too many still alive that need them more than the dead.  Death is inevitable for all of us.
Click to expand...


Of course you think it should be automatic.  You think everything else is the property of the government, so why not people's bodies as well (unless, of course, we're talking about a woman getting an abortion.  THAT is no one else's business).  God forbid that personal choice EVER be considered the default, right?  We should assume that you exist to fulfill the needs of the state, and any and all personal determination (except getting an abortion, of course) should be difficult to acquire.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around 2 million of those potential embryos are destroyed each year in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's almost double the number of abortions in the US in one year.
> 
> Where's the appropriate level of outrage?
Click to expand...


Someplace you didn't bother to look, because you preferred to assume that it didn't exist, in order to serve your narrative.


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organs are not viable for transplant.  It is tissue viable for research and even to develop vaccines that save lives.
> 
> Something good out of something unfortunate.
Click to expand...


So explain to me again why we're waiting for you to accidentally kak off, instead of taking your tissue donation now?  Lord knows, it would be something good out of the unfortunate situation of having to listen to your evil, barbaric bullshit.


----------



## Coyote

Cecilie1200 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around 2 million of those potential embryos are destroyed each year in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's almost double the number of abortions in the US in one year.
> 
> Where's the appropriate level of outrage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someplace you didn't bother to look, because you preferred to assume that it didn't exist, in order to serve your narrative.
Click to expand...


Nope.  I googled and searched and found sparse references.  No one is protesting or blocking invitro clinics.  No death threats, murders or arsons.  The arguments seem more academic.  No accusations of sluts and babykillers.  No accusations of selling baby parts (even though they are).

Naperville Right to Life Activists Protest IVF Clinic Chicago magazine The 312 March 2012
Souls On Ice America s Embryo Glut and the Wasted Promise of Stem Cell Research Mother Jones
In Vitro Fertilisation The Life Resources Charitable Trust

The difference in attitude doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Cecilie1200 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually there are 5 videos out now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the fifth one on here and I noticed it has been ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that my question to you about why you hate women has been ignored......Isn't that right *Stephanie?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe because "Have you stopped beating your wife?" sorts of questions are beneath notice, as are the fucking idiots who ask them.
Click to expand...

And yet unsurprisingly the vast majority of those loaded question fallacies come from the USMB right, questions from conservative idiots that indeed merit no response.


----------



## PK1

Tipsycatlover said:


> The democrat party of buying and selling black people is still buying and selling black people.  Only this time piece  by piece.



---
*WTF* ???
Only Repubs think that stupid way.
In my experience, educated Independents who think for themselves and most Demos would not even  suggest racist crap like that.

However, I'll give you the benefit of doubt in making such a sick joke, Repub style.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

PK1 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrat party of buying and selling black people is still buying and selling black people.  Only this time piece  by piece.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> *WTF* ???
> Only Repubs think that stupid way.
> In my experience, educated Independents who think for themselves and most Demos would not even  suggest racist crap like that.
> 
> However, I'll give you the benefit of doubt in making such a sick joke, Repub style.
Click to expand...

It's no 'joke,' there's no doubt she's serious – she's among the more sick and reprehensible of the USMB right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SAKINAGO SAID:

"You still haven't answered if it is ok to pull the plug with a very very positive prognosis?"

That's because, as already correctly noted, this fails as a false comparison fallacy.


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Besides it should be an easy enough question to answer. Can the husband pull the plug on Sherri tiavo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, I would answer this with the analogy of requiring the doctor to work all day every day of that 3 months without compensation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The machines are doing the work, and now it turns fiscal again. Is it right or wrong to pull the plug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fiscal?   You are attempting to compare the treatment of an adult in a coma with the decision of a woman about carrying a child inside her body?   No.  I am not playing to that bait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes fiscal, you gave me the scenario of of doctor day and night without pay . And I answered. And yes I am making that comparison, before you were arguing that schiavo was not going to regain any consciousness or recover. if you have that high if a probability of recovery do you pull the plug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me ask you this, if I had been in an accident and needed a blood transfusion, and you were the only person around with my blood type, can they force you to give your blood?
> 
> Or an even better analogy, if someone needs an organ transplant to live, and someone has just died in the same hospital, can the organs be taken without consent?
> 
> It is call body autonomy.
Click to expand...

Ahh finally, good response winter born . But I will tell you where the difference is, I am not responsible or in charge of their medical health and decisions. In the case of Sherri Tiavo the husband is, in the case of abortion or child rearing the mother is. We will lock up the mother who abandons her newborn in a dumpster, bc she is responsible for that child. Also o-, universal donor is very common, not a hard commodity to come by. And organ donation is on the other end, very hard commodity to come by, and a lot to ask a complete stranger to donate 

So I am going to assume that you do not want to answer the Sherri tiavo question bc it presents a conflict with consistency for you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Mike Huckabee Shows Off His Bigotry, Idiocy, And Warmongering, All In One Single Debate Addicting Info Mike Huckabee Shows Off His Bigotry Idiocy And Warmongering All In One Single Debate

Just listen to this jackass!



> *On abortion, and Planned Parenthood:*
> *One of the GOP’s primary goals for this election cycle seems to be holding fast to the idea of **defunding Planned Parenthood**.* Planned Parenthood is the devil to these people because of abortion. *Forget women’s health, forget all the other providers that don’t accept Medicaid, they must get rid of Planned Parenthood.* When moderator Chris Wallace asked Huckabee about his position on a Constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, Huckabee said:
> 
> “A lot of people are talking about defunding Planned Parenthood, as if that’s a huge game changer. I think it’s time to do something even more bold. *I think the next president ought to invoke the Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution now that we clearly know that that baby inside the mother’s womb is a person at the moment of conception.*
> 
> _Really. _This is personhood. This is granting Constitutional rights to a fetus that isn’t even viable outside of the womb.* It takes away the mother’s bodily autonomy altogether, and turns her into an incubator*. Huckabee, being the incredibly idiotic person he is, though, only cares about whether that baby is born, and screw the person already living on this planet.



We know that the embryo is a person at the time of conception??!!! WE KNOW? Give me a fucking break


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terri Schiavo's upper brain was gone.  It turned to liquid.  There is no recovery from that.  Essentially, who she was died years before they allowed her body to follow.  Her brain weighed half what a normal brain should have weighed.  She was NOT going to recover.
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows where you _think_ you're going with this since you're basing your destination on the fallacy that a 27 week embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
Click to expand...

Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sakinago, throughout this thread you have wanted the topic to be abortion.  I'm beginning to think you are avoiding the actual topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you what I feel about it, that if that is how you feel about abortion then sure donate the parts. But when you don't feel that way, it's like saying well we robbed a bank, forget about that though, what do we do with the money now? And the other side is saying, wait you can't go robbing banks. If you don't recognize the other side then how can you have the debate?
> 
> So faun, and winter born too, is it ok for the husband to pull plug on Sherri Tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that is a bad analogy.
> 
> For one thing, robbing banks is a crime and would be the lead story.   Abortions are legal.
> 
> This is more like the Humane Society donating the parts of animals euthanized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But to pro life folks it is a crime, which is why the analogy works. If you fail to see that, then the debate goes no where for either party
Click to expand...

That's insanely stupid. Who cares what prolife folks think? Abortion is still not a crime. Robbing a bank actually is.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winterborn you don't see where this is going? I said hypothetically, so would it be wrong to allow him to pull the plug if doctors said 98% chance that she will make full recovery in 3 months? Why did I pick the 3 month number?
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows where you _think_ you're going with this since you're basing your destination on the fallacy that a 27 week embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
Click to expand...

Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo. 

Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows where you _think_ you're going with this since you're basing your destination on the fallacy that a 27 week embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> 
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.

And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.


----------



## vmgram427

But it's ok, the liberals say that is not true, it's misleading the word's  actually coming out of the persons mouth. So as the liberals and the Mainstream media tell you don't believe your eyes because they're playing tricks on you. Holy shit what has our country come to? Now they're telling you to not believe what high officials are saying about the sale of the corps of dead babies 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

vmgram427 said:


> But it's ok, the liberals say that is not true, it's misleading the word's  actually coming out of the persons mouth. So as the liberals and the Mainstream media tell you don't believe your eyes because they're playing tricks on you. Holy shit what has our country come to? Now they're telling you to not believe what high officials are saying about the sale of the corps of dead babies
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Another ignorant rightist chimes in.

An embryo/fetus is not a 'baby,' no one is 'trafficking in body parts,' and Planned Parenthood violated no laws.


----------



## vmgram427

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> vmgram427 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's ok, the liberals say that is not true, it's misleading the word's  actually coming out of the persons mouth. So as the liberals and the Mainstream media tell you don't believe your eyes because they're playing tricks on you. Holy shit what has our country come to? Now they're telling you to not believe what high officials are saying about the sale of the corps of dead babies
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Another ignorant rightist chimes in.
> 
> An embryo/fetus is not a 'baby,' no one is 'trafficking in body parts,' and Planned Parenthood violated no laws.
Click to expand...

Then you are as ignorant as the day is long. Only liberals who drink the kool-aid from the Obama administration are truly worthless and should be dissected and sold off just like the fetuses that are being ripped out of a woman's body. You fucking disgust me you maggot.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Faun

vmgram427 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vmgram427 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's ok, the liberals say that is not true, it's misleading the word's  actually coming out of the persons mouth. So as the liberals and the Mainstream media tell you don't believe your eyes because they're playing tricks on you. Holy shit what has our country come to? Now they're telling you to not believe what high officials are saying about the sale of the corps of dead babies
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Another ignorant rightist chimes in.
> 
> An embryo/fetus is not a 'baby,' no one is 'trafficking in body parts,' and Planned Parenthood violated no laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are as ignorant as the day is long. Only liberals who drink the kool-aid from the Obama administration are truly worthless and should be dissected and sold off just like the fetuses that are being ripped out of a woman's body. You fucking disgust me you maggot.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That you're disgusted by a Liberal only means the Liberal is doing an exemplary job. That you think donating fetal tissue is "selling" it only means you're retarded -- i.e., conservative.


----------



## vmgram427

Faun said:


> vmgram427 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vmgram427 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's ok, the liberals say that is not true, it's misleading the word's  actually coming out of the persons mouth. So as the liberals and the Mainstream media tell you don't believe your eyes because they're playing tricks on you. Holy shit what has our country come to? Now they're telling you to not believe what high officials are saying about the sale of the corps of dead babies
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Another ignorant rightist chimes in.
> 
> An embryo/fetus is not a 'baby,' no one is 'trafficking in body parts,' and Planned Parenthood violated no laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are as ignorant as the day is long. Only liberals who drink the kool-aid from the Obama administration are truly worthless and should be dissected and sold off just like the fetuses that are being ripped out of a woman's body. You fucking disgust me you maggot.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you're disgusted by a Liberal only means the Liberal is doing an exemplary job. That you think donating fetal tissue is "selling" it only means you're retarded -- i.e., conservative.
Click to expand...

First of all its illegal stupid to sell any kind of human or fetus tissue, or didn't you learn that? You fucking liberals twist even the sale of fetuses ripped fully intact from the Mothers womb. I speak and understand English and what those women who work for Planned Parenthood said is setting the price for body parts and the added benefit to a intact fetus well that just jumps up the price and it looks like they make a pretty penny selling because they were all very comfortable talking about it. Make sure when you die to give your body to science. The reason I say this is I'd like to see if they can actually find what drove you to be so blind and uncaring about life. To look the other way at every illegalities this Administration through and starting with The Executive Office next The State Department aka Hillary Clinton next The Justice Department with my favorite Eric Holder. The crimes and misdemeanors have been mind blowing but you liberals stayed blind to the truth easily talked away by the mainstream media. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Cecilie1200

Coyote said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting how these people are in a frenzy about abortion, and what to ethically do with the tissue resulting from it but have been strangely silent about the *millions *of embryos created through by the for-profit invitro fertilization clinics.
> 
> In the UK, 2012 - 1.7 million embryos were discarded.
> 
> Criticisms to this are fairly mild because it's in the name of helping couples to have more children.
> 
> Couples can choose to donate the embryos to research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around 2 million of those potential embryos are destroyed each year in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's almost double the number of abortions in the US in one year.
> 
> Where's the appropriate level of outrage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someplace you didn't bother to look, because you preferred to assume that it didn't exist, in order to serve your narrative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  I googled and searched and found sparse references.  No one is protesting or blocking invitro clinics.  No death threats, murders or arsons.  The arguments seem more academic.  No accusations of sluts and babykillers.  No accusations of selling baby parts (even though they are).
> 
> Naperville Right to Life Activists Protest IVF Clinic Chicago magazine The 312 March 2012
> Souls On Ice America s Embryo Glut and the Wasted Promise of Stem Cell Research Mother Jones
> In Vitro Fertilisation The Life Resources Charitable Trust
> 
> The difference in attitude doesn't make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...


Oh, okay.  I thought you were talking about real, sensible pro-lifers, who most certainly DO have an issue with IVF clinics disposing of fetuses.  I didn't initially realize that we were traipsing across Planet Liberal and assuming every lone wackadoodle clinic bomber was representative of the sum total of pro-lifers.  Now that I understand the terms and parameters you're applying, piss off.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually there are 5 videos out now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the fifth one on here and I noticed it has been ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I noticed that my question to you about why you hate women has been ignored......Isn't that right *Stephanie?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe because "Have you stopped beating your wife?" sorts of questions are beneath notice, as are the fucking idiots who ask them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet unsurprisingly the vast majority of those loaded question fallacies come from the USMB right, questions from conservative idiots that indeed merit no response.
Click to expand...


Yes, and this assertion is incredibly meaningful, coming from you.


----------



## MaryL

I would like the same folks that are anti-abortion, explain why  they are  so pro Death penalty and pro  gun. Just wondering.


----------



## Cecilie1200

MaryL said:


> I would like the same folks that are anti-abortion, explain why  they are  so pro Death penalty and pro  gun. Just wondering.



Heinous murderers are worth considerably less to me than innocent babies are, and guns have fuck-all to do with this conversation.

That help you any?


----------



## MaryL

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like the same folks that are anti-abortion, explain why  they are  so pro Death penalty and pro  gun. Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heinous murderers are worth considerably less to me than innocent babies are, and guns have fuck-all to do with this conversation.
> 
> That help you any?
Click to expand...

Innocent lives are innocent lives, how many baby calves doses it take to make veal?And all those juicy delicious bovines.All those  McWoppers, lots of innocent bovines  died for your sins, I am tired of this bullshit. Wow.You are not interested in protecting  the innocent, just more sanctimonious bul-loney.


----------



## MaryL

MaryL said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like the same folks that are anti-abortion, explain why  they are  so pro Death penalty and pro  gun. Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heinous murderers are worth considerably less to me than innocent babies are, and guns have fuck-all to do with this conversation.
> 
> That help you any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Innocent lives are innocent lives, how many baby calves doses it take to make veal?And all those juicy delicious bovines.All those  McWoppers, lots of innocent bovines  died for your sins, I am tired of this bullshit. Wow.You are not interested in protecting  the innocent, just more sanctimonious bul-lony. Oh, Ironically, I  am AM a human organ donor. Damn.
Click to expand...


----------



## MaryL

Sorry my internet is getting all wonky and weird. Sorry. it's a liberal conspiracy or something.


----------



## Faun

vmgram427 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vmgram427 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vmgram427 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's ok, the liberals say that is not true, it's misleading the word's  actually coming out of the persons mouth. So as the liberals and the Mainstream media tell you don't believe your eyes because they're playing tricks on you. Holy shit what has our country come to? Now they're telling you to not believe what high officials are saying about the sale of the corps of dead babies
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Another ignorant rightist chimes in.
> 
> An embryo/fetus is not a 'baby,' no one is 'trafficking in body parts,' and Planned Parenthood violated no laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are as ignorant as the day is long. Only liberals who drink the kool-aid from the Obama administration are truly worthless and should be dissected and sold off just like the fetuses that are being ripped out of a woman's body. You fucking disgust me you maggot.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you're disgusted by a Liberal only means the Liberal is doing an exemplary job. That you think donating fetal tissue is "selling" it only means you're retarded -- i.e., conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all its illegal stupid to sell any kind of human or fetus tissue, or didn't you learn that? You fucking liberals twist even the sale of fetuses ripped fully intact from the Mothers womb. I speak and understand English and what those women who work for Planned Parenthood said is setting the price for body parts and the added benefit to a intact fetus well that just jumps up the price and it looks like they make a pretty penny selling because they were all very comfortable talking about it. Make sure when you die to give your body to science. The reason I say this is I'd like to see if they can actually find what drove you to be so blind and uncaring about life. To look the other way at every illegalities this Administration through and starting with The Executive Office next The State Department aka Hillary Clinton next The Justice Department with my favorite Eric Holder. The crimes and misdemeanors have been mind blowing but you liberals stayed blind to the truth easily talked away by the mainstream media.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

How much does PP profit?


----------



## JoeB131

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, okay. I thought you were talking about real, sensible pro-lifers, who most certainly DO have an issue with IVF clinics disposing of fetuses. I didn't initially realize that we were traipsing across Planet Liberal and assuming every lone wackadoodle clinic bomber was representative of the sum total of pro-lifers. Now that I understand the terms and parameters you're applying, piss off.



The people making these videos ARE the very same people who are bombing the clinics. 

In fact, one of CMP's officers, *Cheryl Sullenger, *was sentence to prison for conspiracy to bomb an abortion clinic. 

The Extreme And Violent Background Of The Group Consulting On The Anti-Planned Parenthood Videos Research Media Matters for America

_Saying he wanted to set an example for those who would consider breaking the law even for a righteous cause, a federal judge Thursday imposed stiff prison terms on the first of the Rev. Dorman Owens' followers to be sentenced for conspiring to bomb a San Diego abortion clinic.

U.S. District Judge Earl B. Gillam sentenced Cheryl Sullenger, 32, to three years. He sentenced her husband, Randall Sullenger, 35, to an 18-month term--six months of it in a halfway house so he can continue working at a warehouse before leaving for one year in prison._


----------



## WinterBorn

vmgram427 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vmgram427 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vmgram427 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's ok, the liberals say that is not true, it's misleading the word's  actually coming out of the persons mouth. So as the liberals and the Mainstream media tell you don't believe your eyes because they're playing tricks on you. Holy shit what has our country come to? Now they're telling you to not believe what high officials are saying about the sale of the corps of dead babies
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Another ignorant rightist chimes in.
> 
> An embryo/fetus is not a 'baby,' no one is 'trafficking in body parts,' and Planned Parenthood violated no laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are as ignorant as the day is long. Only liberals who drink the kool-aid from the Obama administration are truly worthless and should be dissected and sold off just like the fetuses that are being ripped out of a woman's body. You fucking disgust me you maggot.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you're disgusted by a Liberal only means the Liberal is doing an exemplary job. That you think donating fetal tissue is "selling" it only means you're retarded -- i.e., conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all its illegal stupid to sell any kind of human or fetus tissue, or didn't you learn that? You fucking liberals twist even the sale of fetuses ripped fully intact from the Mothers womb. I speak and understand English and what those women who work for Planned Parenthood said is setting the price for body parts and the added benefit to a intact fetus well that just jumps up the price and it looks like they make a pretty penny selling because they were all very comfortable talking about it. Make sure when you die to give your body to science. The reason I say this is I'd like to see if they can actually find what drove you to be so blind and uncaring about life. To look the other way at every illegalities this Administration through and starting with The Executive Office next The State Department aka Hillary Clinton next The Justice Department with my favorite Eric Holder. The crimes and misdemeanors have been mind blowing but you liberals stayed blind to the truth easily talked away by the mainstream media.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


_I really do try to maintain a civil discourse on these forums.  But sometimes I read posts that just crawl all over me.  My apologies for the tone._

Look you ignorant twit, if you want to pretend that the facts don't exist, that is fine.  But don't pretend everyone else is as clueless as you are.

First of all, yes it is illegal to sell body parts and human tissues for profit.  But since that is not what happened, no law was broken.  What you heard being discussed was the exchange of enough money to cover the costs of the donation.  Nothing more.

And this "...it looks like they made a pretty penny selling..." is pure bullshit.  They got between $30 and $100.  Maybe that is big money to you, but it will barely cover the costs (according to experts in the field).

As for the whole "crimes & misdemeanors" thing, you might want to check out every administration since LBJ.  Other than Jimmy Carter, every administration has had the same accusations aimed at it.  They just keep getting nastier as we go.


----------



## Cecilie1200

MaryL said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like the same folks that are anti-abortion, explain why  they are  so pro Death penalty and pro  gun. Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heinous murderers are worth considerably less to me than innocent babies are, and guns have fuck-all to do with this conversation.
> 
> That help you any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Innocent lives are innocent lives, how many baby calves doses it take to make veal?And all those juicy delicious bovines.All those  McWoppers, lots of innocent bovines  died for your sins, I am tired of this bullshit. Wow.You are not interested in protecting  the innocent, just more sanctimonious bul-loney.
Click to expand...

 
Okay, seriously, how many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, and from what height?

Get off my screen, get medication, get help.  Dismissed, flatliner.


----------



## HenryBHough

In keeping with Regime Obama's policy of "Europeanizing" America, Murder, Inc. has announced they will no longer sell infant body parts by the "each" or by the pound.  Only by the kilogram.


----------



## PK1

HenryBHough said:


> In keeping with Regime Obama's policy of "Europeanizing" America, Murder, Inc. has announced they will no longer sell infant body parts by the "each" or by the pound.  Only by the kilogram.



---
Making up more crap, I see.
Seems to be a pattern, like the boy who cried "wolf!".
More funny than scary, though .


----------



## SassyIrishLass

If people can demand the Confederate flag be taken down then this is not unreasonable 

*Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder*

The question raised by the above headline is not whether the Smithsonian Institution will comply with the demand in a letter coauthored by a group of black clergymen who call themselves “Ministers Taking a Stand.” It is, rather, what a bust in bronze of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is doing in the National Portrait Gallery’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit in the first place.

As the letter notes, Sanger was a proponent of black eugenics.

Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as “the feeble minded;” speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also, the notorious “Negro Project” which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!

Perhaps your institution is a victim of propaganda advanced by those who support abortion….

Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder - Liberty Unyielding


----------



## WinterBorn

SassyIrishLass said:


> If people can demand the Confederate flag be taken down then this is not unreasonable
> 
> *Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder*
> 
> The question raised by the above headline is not whether the Smithsonian Institution will comply with the demand in a letter coauthored by a group of black clergymen who call themselves “Ministers Taking a Stand.” It is, rather, what a bust in bronze of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is doing in the National Portrait Gallery’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit in the first place.
> 
> As the letter notes, Sanger was a proponent of black eugenics.
> 
> Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as “the feeble minded;” speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also, the notorious “Negro Project” which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!
> 
> Perhaps your institution is a victim of propaganda advanced by those who support abortion….
> 
> Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder - Liberty Unyielding



Nice sentiment.  But this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

WinterBorn said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people can demand the Confederate flag be taken down then this is not unreasonable
> 
> *Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder*
> 
> The question raised by the above headline is not whether the Smithsonian Institution will comply with the demand in a letter coauthored by a group of black clergymen who call themselves “Ministers Taking a Stand.” It is, rather, what a bust in bronze of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is doing in the National Portrait Gallery’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit in the first place.
> 
> As the letter notes, Sanger was a proponent of black eugenics.
> 
> Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as “the feeble minded;” speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also, the notorious “Negro Project” which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!
> 
> Perhaps your institution is a victim of propaganda advanced by those who support abortion….
> 
> Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder - Liberty Unyielding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice sentiment.  But this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...

You absolutely right, it does not. Nor does it have anything to do with the work of Planned Parenthood today. Yes she had some racist ideas but just to set the record straight, there is this to consider:




> In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem.[108] Sanger secured funding from the Julius Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a *15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors*, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press and in black churches, and *it received the approval of **W. E. B. Du Bois**, founder of the **NAACP**.**[109]** Sanger did not tolerate **bigotry** among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects.**[110]** Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from **Martin Luther King, Jr.**, in his 1966 acceptance speech for the **Margaret Sanger award**.**[111]*
> 
> From 1939 to 1942 Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role—alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamble—in *the Negro Project, an effort to deliver birth control to poor black people*.[112] Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble "*we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea* if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." While New York University's _Margaret Sanger Papers Project_, argues that in writing that letter, "Sanger recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South;"[113] Angela Davis uses the quote to support claims that Sanger intended to exterminate the black population.[114] Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## SassyIrishLass

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people can demand the Confederate flag be taken down then this is not unreasonable
> 
> *Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder*
> 
> The question raised by the above headline is not whether the Smithsonian Institution will comply with the demand in a letter coauthored by a group of black clergymen who call themselves “Ministers Taking a Stand.” It is, rather, what a bust in bronze of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is doing in the National Portrait Gallery’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit in the first place.
> 
> As the letter notes, Sanger was a proponent of black eugenics.
> 
> Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as “the feeble minded;” speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also, the notorious “Negro Project” which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!
> 
> Perhaps your institution is a victim of propaganda advanced by those who support abortion….
> 
> Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder - Liberty Unyielding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice sentiment.  But this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You absolutely right, it does not. Nor does it have anything to do with the work of Planned Parenthood today. Yes she had some racist ideas but just to set the record straight, there is this to consider:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and leader of New York's Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem.[108] Sanger secured funding from the Julius Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a *15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors*, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press and in black churches, and *it received the approval of **W. E. B. Du Bois**, founder of the **NAACP**.**[109]** Sanger did not tolerate **bigotry** among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects.**[110]** Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from **Martin Luther King, Jr.**, in his 1966 acceptance speech for the **Margaret Sanger award**.**[111]*
> 
> From 1939 to 1942 Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role—alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamble—in *the Negro Project, an effort to deliver birth control to poor black people*.[112] Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble "*we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea* if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." While New York University's _Margaret Sanger Papers Project_, argues that in writing that letter, "Sanger recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South;"[113] Angela Davis uses the quote to support claims that Sanger intended to exterminate the black population.[114] Margaret Sanger - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Bleh, save that worn out BS, Sanger was a racist who supported eradicating the black race. Sorry but it's a fact and if the Confederate flag has been deemed offensive so is she


----------



## PK1

WinterBorn said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people can demand the Confederate flag be taken down then this is not unreasonable
> 
> *Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder*
> 
> The question raised by the above headline is not whether the Smithsonian Institution will comply with the demand in a letter coauthored by a group of black clergymen who call themselves “Ministers Taking a Stand.” It is, rather, what a bust in bronze of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is doing in the National Portrait Gallery’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit in the first place.
> 
> As the letter notes, Sanger was a proponent of black eugenics.
> 
> Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as “the feeble minded;” speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also, the notorious “Negro Project” which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!
> 
> Perhaps your institution is a victim of propaganda advanced by those who support abortion….
> 
> Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder - Liberty Unyielding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice sentiment.  But this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...


---
Actually, her post reflects similar tactics -- smearing the positive actions of PP & Sanger with crappy allegations.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

PK1 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people can demand the Confederate flag be taken down then this is not unreasonable
> 
> *Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder*
> 
> The question raised by the above headline is not whether the Smithsonian Institution will comply with the demand in a letter coauthored by a group of black clergymen who call themselves “Ministers Taking a Stand.” It is, rather, what a bust in bronze of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is doing in the National Portrait Gallery’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit in the first place.
> 
> As the letter notes, Sanger was a proponent of black eugenics.
> 
> Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as “the feeble minded;” speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also, the notorious “Negro Project” which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!
> 
> Perhaps your institution is a victim of propaganda advanced by those who support abortion….
> 
> Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder - Liberty Unyielding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice sentiment.  But this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> Actually, her post reflects similar tactics -- smearing the positive actions of PP & Sanger with crappy allegations.
Click to expand...


Don't blame me for what Sanger was guilty of. She was a racist. Any thinking person realizes this.


----------



## PK1

SassyIrishLass said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people can demand the Confederate flag be taken down then this is not unreasonable
> 
> *Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder*
> 
> The question raised by the above headline is not whether the Smithsonian Institution will comply with the demand in a letter coauthored by a group of black clergymen who call themselves “Ministers Taking a Stand.” It is, rather, what a bust in bronze of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is doing in the National Portrait Gallery’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit in the first place.
> 
> As the letter notes, Sanger was a proponent of black eugenics.
> 
> Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as “the feeble minded;” speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also, the notorious “Negro Project” which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!
> 
> Perhaps your institution is a victim of propaganda advanced by those who support abortion….
> 
> Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder - Liberty Unyielding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice sentiment.  But this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> Actually, her post reflects similar tactics -- smearing the positive actions of PP & Sanger with crappy allegations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't blame me for what Sanger was guilty of. She was a racist. Any thinking person realizes this.
Click to expand...


---
Sanger was not a racist, according to what I read so far. She was a proponent of negative eugenics and birth control.
If she was a racist, why would Martin Luther King praise her upon accepting the Margaret Sanger Award ?

Any thinking person can see your unscrupulous political tactics.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

PK1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people can demand the Confederate flag be taken down then this is not unreasonable
> 
> *Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder*
> 
> The question raised by the above headline is not whether the Smithsonian Institution will comply with the demand in a letter coauthored by a group of black clergymen who call themselves “Ministers Taking a Stand.” It is, rather, what a bust in bronze of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is doing in the National Portrait Gallery’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit in the first place.
> 
> As the letter notes, Sanger was a proponent of black eugenics.
> 
> Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as “the feeble minded;” speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also, the notorious “Negro Project” which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!
> 
> Perhaps your institution is a victim of propaganda advanced by those who support abortion….
> 
> Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder - Liberty Unyielding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice sentiment.  But this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> Actually, her post reflects similar tactics -- smearing the positive actions of PP & Sanger with crappy allegations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't blame me for what Sanger was guilty of. She was a racist. Any thinking person realizes this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> Sanger was not a racist, according to what I read so far. She was a proponent of negative eugenics and birth control.
> If she was a racist, why would Martin Luther King praise her upon accepting the Margaret Sanger Award ?
> 
> Any thinking person can see your unscrupulous political tactics.
Click to expand...


You're one clueless mofo spewing BS. Go away


----------



## PK1

SassyIrishLass said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people can demand the Confederate flag be taken down then this is not unreasonable
> 
> *Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder*
> 
> The question raised by the above headline is not whether the Smithsonian Institution will comply with the demand in a letter coauthored by a group of black clergymen who call themselves “Ministers Taking a Stand.” It is, rather, what a bust in bronze of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger is doing in the National Portrait Gallery’s “Struggle for Justice” exhibit in the first place.
> 
> As the letter notes, Sanger was a proponent of black eugenics.
> 
> Perhaps the Gallery is unaware that Ms. Sanger supported black eugenics, a racist attitude toward black and other minority babies; an elitist attitude toward those she regarded as “the feeble minded;” speaking at rallies of Ku Klux Klan women; and communications with Hitler sympathizers. Also, the notorious “Negro Project” which sought to limit, if not eliminate, black births, was her brainchild. Despite these well documented facts of history, her bust sits proudly in your gallery as a hero of justice. The obvious incongruity is staggering!
> 
> Perhaps your institution is a victim of propaganda advanced by those who support abortion….
> 
> Black pastors petition Smithsonian to remove bust of Planned Parenthood founder - Liberty Unyielding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice sentiment.  But this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> Actually, her post reflects similar tactics -- smearing the positive actions of PP & Sanger with crappy allegations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't blame me for what Sanger was guilty of. She was a racist. Any thinking person realizes this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> Sanger was not a racist, according to what I read so far. She was a proponent of negative eugenics and birth control.
> If she was a racist, why would Martin Luther King praise her upon accepting the Margaret Sanger Award ?
> 
> Any thinking person can see your unscrupulous political tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're one clueless mofo spewing BS. Go away
Click to expand...


---
You want me to go away because I'm a big righteous thorn in your big lying sassy ass?
LOL.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

PK1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice sentiment.  But this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Actually, her post reflects similar tactics -- smearing the positive actions of PP & Sanger with crappy allegations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't blame me for what Sanger was guilty of. She was a racist. Any thinking person realizes this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> Sanger was not a racist, according to what I read so far. She was a proponent of negative eugenics and birth control.
> If she was a racist, why would Martin Luther King praise her upon accepting the Margaret Sanger Award ?
> 
> Any thinking person can see your unscrupulous political tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're one clueless mofo spewing BS. Go away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> You want me to go away because I'm a big righteous thorn in your big lying sassy ass?
> LOL.
Click to expand...


I want you to go away because you're clueless, I didn't stutter asshole


----------



## PK1

SassyIrishLass said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Actually, her post reflects similar tactics -- smearing the positive actions of PP & Sanger with crappy allegations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't blame me for what Sanger was guilty of. She was a racist. Any thinking person realizes this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> Sanger was not a racist, according to what I read so far. She was a proponent of negative eugenics and birth control.
> If she was a racist, why would Martin Luther King praise her upon accepting the Margaret Sanger Award ?
> 
> Any thinking person can see your unscrupulous political tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're one clueless mofo spewing BS. Go away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> You want me to go away because I'm a big righteous thorn in your big lying sassy ass?
> LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to go away because you're clueless, I didn't stutter asshole
Click to expand...


---
Calm down. Your emotions don't lessen your stupidity.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

PK1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't blame me for what Sanger was guilty of. She was a racist. Any thinking person realizes this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Sanger was not a racist, according to what I read so far. She was a proponent of negative eugenics and birth control.
> If she was a racist, why would Martin Luther King praise her upon accepting the Margaret Sanger Award ?
> 
> Any thinking person can see your unscrupulous political tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're one clueless mofo spewing BS. Go away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> You want me to go away because I'm a big righteous thorn in your big lying sassy ass?
> LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to go away because you're clueless, I didn't stutter asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> Calm down. Your emotions don't lessen your stupidity.
Click to expand...



GFY, how's that you decrepit old turd?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SassyIrishLass said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> Sanger was not a racist, according to what I read so far. She was a proponent of negative eugenics and birth control.
> If she was a racist, why would Martin Luther King praise her upon accepting the Margaret Sanger Award ?
> 
> Any thinking person can see your unscrupulous political tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're one clueless mofo spewing BS. Go away
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> You want me to go away because I'm a big righteous thorn in your big lying sassy ass?
> LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to go away because you're clueless, I didn't stutter asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> Calm down. Your emotions don't lessen your stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GFY, how's that you decrepit old turd?
Click to expand...

Thank you for that intelligent and insightful analysis of the subject. Well, for you it is anyway. You're really on a downward spiral here. What's next? Yo mamma wears combat boots? Listening to you makes me feel  like I'm drowning in a sea of inanity and monkeys dressed as lifeguards are throwing me anvils.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're one clueless mofo spewing BS. Go away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> You want me to go away because I'm a big righteous thorn in your big lying sassy ass?
> LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want you to go away because you're clueless, I didn't stutter asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> Calm down. Your emotions don't lessen your stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> GFY, how's that you decrepit old turd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for that intelligent and insightful analysis of the subject. Well, for you it is anyway. You're really on a downward spiral here. What's next? Yo mamma wears combat boots? Listening to you makes me feel  like I'm drowning in a sea of inanity and monkeys dressed as lifeguards are throwing me anvils.
Click to expand...


Anyone using the word "progressive" in their screen name is never to be taken serious. Run along now, progtard


----------



## MaryL

Cecilie1200 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like the same folks that are anti-abortion, explain why  they are  so pro Death penalty and pro  gun. Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heinous murderers are worth considerably less to me than innocent babies are, and guns have fuck-all to do with this conversation.
> 
> That help you any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Innocent lives are innocent lives, how many baby calves doses it take to make veal?And all those juicy delicious bovines.All those  McWoppers, lots of innocent bovines  died for your sins, I am tired of this bullshit. Wow.You are not interested in protecting  the innocent, just more sanctimonious bul-loney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, seriously, how many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, and from what height?
> 
> Get off my screen, get medication, get help.  Dismissed, flatliner.
Click to expand...

Wow, Someone was a little tiny  bit pissed off. Good. I support the death penalty (even though a few innocent people have been put to death, and our troops, (even though they have harmed  a few innocent civilians). I drive a car even though plenty of innocent  people are killed in car accidents.We support firearms even though plenty of innocent  folks are murdered by them every freekin day. How about this, sis, condescend to my level and think about this across the board, not just a narrow topic. Innocent people die every moment of every day, that is a fact. Gods will, all that mumbo jumbo. Get over yourself.


----------



## PK1

MaryL said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like the same folks that are anti-abortion, explain why  they are  so pro Death penalty and pro  gun. Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heinous murderers are worth considerably less to me than innocent babies are, and guns have fuck-all to do with this conversation.
> 
> That help you any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Innocent lives are innocent lives, how many baby calves doses it take to make veal?And all those juicy delicious bovines.All those  McWoppers, lots of innocent bovines  died for your sins, I am tired of this bullshit. Wow.You are not interested in protecting  the innocent, just more sanctimonious bul-loney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, seriously, how many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, and from what height?
> 
> Get off my screen, get medication, get help.  Dismissed, flatliner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, Someone was a little tiny  bit pissed off. Good. I support the death penalty (even though a few innocent people have been put to death, and our troops, (even though they have harmed  a few innocent civilians). I drive a car even though plenty of innocent  people are killed in car accidents.We support firearms even though plenty of innocent  folks are murdered by them every freekin day. How about this, sis, condescend to my level and think about this across the board, not just a narrow topic. Innocent people die every moment of every day, that is a fact. Gods will, all that mumbo jumbo. Get over yourself.
Click to expand...


---
I also support the death penalty, but only for 100% certainty of guilt after a fair trial.
And speaking of God's will, it's certain that at least half of fertilized eggs get aborted naturally (*miscarriage); most occur before the woman realizes she was pregnant.*

Shall we give God the death penalty?
Or was it the Devil and God's a pussy in not stopping him?


----------



## MaryL

I was in biomed for a few months, and it's ugly stuff, cutting up human bodies and autopsies and gut wrenching stuff. And i just went by Denver's planned parenthood location off of Quebec and Smith  road.  It was strange. It was enclosed by fencing and armed guards. And the front gate was covered by protesters with placards  surrounding the joint like it  was under a sige. This is still America, right? And, I didn't see a cardboard box full of dead babies with a sign ten cents  a pound out in front either.


----------



## MaryL

PK1 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like the same folks that are anti-abortion, explain why  they are  so pro Death penalty and pro  gun. Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heinous murderers are worth considerably less to me than innocent babies are, and guns have fuck-all to do with this conversation.
> 
> That help you any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Innocent lives are innocent lives, how many baby calves doses it take to make veal?And all those juicy delicious bovines.All those  McWoppers, lots of innocent bovines  died for your sins, I am tired of this bullshit. Wow.You are not interested in protecting  the innocent, just more sanctimonious bul-loney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, seriously, how many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, and from what height?
> 
> Get off my screen, get medication, get help.  Dismissed, flatliner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, Someone was a little tiny  bit pissed off. Good. I support the death penalty (even though a few innocent people have been put to death, and our troops, (even though they have harmed  a few innocent civilians). I drive a car even though plenty of innocent  people are killed in car accidents.We support firearms even though plenty of innocent  folks are murdered by them every freekin day. How about this, sis, condescend to my level and think about this across the board, not just a narrow topic. Innocent people die every moment of every day, that is a fact. Gods will, all that mumbo jumbo. Get over yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> I also support the death penalty, but only for 100% certainty of guilt after a fair trial.
> And speaking of God's will, it's certain that at least half of fertilized eggs get aborted naturally (*miscarriage); most occur before the woman realizes she was pregnant.*
> 
> Shall we give God the death penalty?
> Or was it the Devil and God's a pussy in not stopping him?
Click to expand...

I


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
Click to expand...

Why do they supersede? Bc it's law? Well so did white rights of ownership of slaves, separate but equal was law. So bc it was done by law we should just say it was ok then? Just saying my analogy is irrelevant bc women's rights trump baby's rights does not make that statement true. And that statement is no longer true as soon as the third trimester, which is a made up timeline we invented very recently. You can keep selling yourself inconsistent values to make it not seem wrong, just don't go crying when grandma does not get approved for knee surgery and instead gets a Cain bc that is what you are sacrificing when you hold and stand by those inconsistent views


----------



## MaryL

PK1 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like the same folks that are anti-abortion, explain why  they are  so pro Death penalty and pro  gun. Just wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heinous murderers are worth considerably less to me than innocent babies are, and guns have fuck-all to do with this conversation.
> 
> That help you any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Innocent lives are innocent lives, how many baby calves doses it take to make veal?And all those juicy delicious bovines.All those  McWoppers, lots of innocent bovines  died for your sins, I am tired of this bullshit. Wow.You are not interested in protecting  the innocent, just more sanctimonious bul-loney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, seriously, how many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, and from what height?
> 
> Get off my screen, get medication, get help.  Dismissed, flatliner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, Someone was a little tiny  bit pissed off. Good. I support the death penalty (even though a few innocent people have been put to death, and our troops, (even though they have harmed  a few innocent civilians). I drive a car even though plenty of innocent  people are killed in car accidents.We support firearms even though plenty of innocent  folks are murdered by them every freekin day. How about this, sis, condescend to my level and think about this across the board, not just a narrow topic. Innocent people die every moment of every day, that is a fact. Gods will, all that mumbo jumbo. Get over yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> I also support the death penalty, but only for 100% certainty of guilt after a fair trial.
> And speaking of God's will, it's certain that at least half of fertilized eggs get aborted naturally (*miscarriage); most occur before the woman realizes she was pregnant.*
> 
> Shall we give God the death penalty?
> Or was it the Devil and God's a pussy in not stopping him?
Click to expand...

It is outrageous, they just gave John Holmes ( the Aurora theater shooter) life in jail for shooting all those innocent people, same thing with Dexter Lewis, murdered 5 innocent people in cold blood. A life sentence. Does innocence figure in here in any way? Where is god in  this mess? Wow.


----------



## PK1

MaryL said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heinous murderers are worth considerably less to me than innocent babies are, and guns have fuck-all to do with this conversation.
> 
> That help you any?
> 
> 
> 
> Innocent lives are innocent lives, how many baby calves doses it take to make veal?And all those juicy delicious bovines.All those  McWoppers, lots of innocent bovines  died for your sins, I am tired of this bullshit. Wow.You are not interested in protecting  the innocent, just more sanctimonious bul-loney.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, seriously, how many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, and from what height?
> 
> Get off my screen, get medication, get help.  Dismissed, flatliner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, Someone was a little tiny  bit pissed off. Good. I support the death penalty (even though a few innocent people have been put to death, and our troops, (even though they have harmed  a few innocent civilians). I drive a car even though plenty of innocent  people are killed in car accidents.We support firearms even though plenty of innocent  folks are murdered by them every freekin day. How about this, sis, condescend to my level and think about this across the board, not just a narrow topic. Innocent people die every moment of every day, that is a fact. Gods will, all that mumbo jumbo. Get over yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> I also support the death penalty, but only for 100% certainty of guilt after a fair trial.
> And speaking of God's will, it's certain that at least half of fertilized eggs get aborted naturally (*miscarriage); most occur before the woman realizes she was pregnant.*
> 
> Shall we give God the death penalty?
> Or was it the Devil and God's a pussy in not stopping him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is outrageous, they just gave John Holmes ( the Aurora theater shooter) life in jail for shooting all those innocent people, same thing with Dexter Lewis, murdered 5 innocent people in cold blood. A life sentence. Does innocence figure in here in any way? Where is god in  this mess? Wow.
Click to expand...


---
A "bleeding liberal" can argue that these murderers had been influenced by their unfortunate upbringing, and therefore, it's not their fault.
Or, the devil made them do it.

Regardless of the excuses, I take the practical approach. We should kill them  off & remove their "suffering" immediately. This will save us some gov budget funds that can go toward education for the other/younger unfortunate people who were born in poor development environments.


----------



## PK1

PK1 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Innocent lives are innocent lives, how many baby calves doses it take to make veal?And all those juicy delicious bovines.All those  McWoppers, lots of innocent bovines  died for your sins, I am tired of this bullshit. Wow.You are not interested in protecting  the innocent, just more sanctimonious bul-loney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, seriously, how many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, and from what height?
> 
> Get off my screen, get medication, get help.  Dismissed, flatliner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, Someone was a little tiny  bit pissed off. Good. I support the death penalty (even though a few innocent people have been put to death, and our troops, (even though they have harmed  a few innocent civilians). I drive a car even though plenty of innocent  people are killed in car accidents.We support firearms even though plenty of innocent  folks are murdered by them every freekin day. How about this, sis, condescend to my level and think about this across the board, not just a narrow topic. Innocent people die every moment of every day, that is a fact. Gods will, all that mumbo jumbo. Get over yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> I also support the death penalty, but only for 100% certainty of guilt after a fair trial.
> And speaking of God's will, it's certain that at least half of fertilized eggs get aborted naturally (*miscarriage); most occur before the woman realizes she was pregnant.*
> 
> Shall we give God the death penalty?
> Or was it the Devil and God's a pussy in not stopping him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is outrageous, they just gave John Holmes ( the Aurora theater shooter) life in jail for shooting all those innocent people, same thing with Dexter Lewis, murdered 5 innocent people in cold blood. A life sentence. Does innocence figure in here in any way? Where is god in  this mess? Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> A "bleeding liberal" can argue that these murderers had been influenced by their unfortunate upbringing, and therefore, it's not their fault.
> Or, the devil made them do it.
> 
> Regardless of the excuses, I take the practical approach. We should kill them  off & remove their "suffering" immediately. This will save us some gov budget funds that can go toward education for the other/younger unfortunate people who were born in poor development environments.
Click to expand...


---
And we should "traffic" their body parts to help others in medical need


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
Click to expand...

And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo


----------



## MaryL

PK1 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, seriously, how many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, and from what height?
> 
> Get off my screen, get medication, get help.  Dismissed, flatliner.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Someone was a little tiny  bit pissed off. Good. I support the death penalty (even though a few innocent people have been put to death, and our troops, (even though they have harmed  a few innocent civilians). I drive a car even though plenty of innocent  people are killed in car accidents.We support firearms even though plenty of innocent  folks are murdered by them every freekin day. How about this, sis, condescend to my level and think about this across the board, not just a narrow topic. Innocent people die every moment of every day, that is a fact. Gods will, all that mumbo jumbo. Get over yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> I also support the death penalty, but only for 100% certainty of guilt after a fair trial.
> And speaking of God's will, it's certain that at least half of fertilized eggs get aborted naturally (*miscarriage); most occur before the woman realizes she was pregnant.*
> 
> Shall we give God the death penalty?
> Or was it the Devil and God's a pussy in not stopping him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is outrageous, they just gave John Holmes ( the Aurora theater shooter) life in jail for shooting all those innocent people, same thing with Dexter Lewis, murdered 5 innocent people in cold blood. A life sentence. Does innocence figure in here in any way? Where is god in  this mess? Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> A "bleeding liberal" can argue that these murderers had been influenced by their unfortunate upbringing, and therefore, it's not their fault.
> Or, the devil made them do it.
> 
> Regardless of the excuses, I take the practical approach. We should kill them  off & remove their "suffering" immediately. This will save us some gov budget funds that can go toward education for the other/younger unfortunate people who were born in poor development environments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> And we should "traffic" their body parts to help others in medical need
Click to expand...

The short answer?  Some die that others live. That is a hard pill to swallow.  I am a  organ donor. My death should  benefit someone.  I hope so. Abortion,too. Does that baby/fetus need protecting? I don't know, I leave that up to fate. Or God, whichever you prefer. People are milking this issue to fuel their outrage.


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo
Click to expand...


The difference, as I said before, is that Terri Schiavo's survival did not require co-opting someone else's body.


----------



## JoeB131

SassyIrishLass said:


> Bleh, save that worn out BS, Sanger was a racist who supported eradicating the black race. Sorry but it's a fact and if the Confederate flag has been deemed offensive so is she



Um, no, not really.  

Sanger was in fact praised by black leaders at the time for helping bring birth control to their community. 

Now I know this is a shock to you, but birth control is actually considered a GOOD thing by sane people.


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> 
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, as I said before, is that Terri Schiavo's survival did not require co-opting someone else's body.
Click to expand...

Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent


----------



## JoeB131

sakinago said:


> Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent



Not really.  A woman after birth has the right to renounce parenthood.  No one can compell her to take care of a child if she doesn't want to.  

Now, if she agreed to parent the child and doesn't, that would be neglect.


----------



## sakinago

JoeB131 said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.  A woman after birth has the right to renounce parenthood.  No one can compell her to take care of a child if she doesn't want to.
> 
> Now, if she agreed to parent the child and doesn't, that would be neglect.
Click to expand...

But then the person caring for that child  would be charged with neglect if chose to behave that way


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? *Again*, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows where you _think_ you're going with this since you're basing your destination on the fallacy that a 27 week embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> 
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.

As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> 
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF are you talking about? *Again*, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of  27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri


----------



## WinterBorn

sakinago said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, as I said before, is that Terri Schiavo's survival did not require co-opting someone else's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent
Click to expand...


I am being consistent.  No one forces the mother to keep the baby.  She can surrender it.   But forcing her to carry it to term forces her to have her body co-opted and changed against her will.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF are you talking about? *Again*, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of  27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri
Click to expand...

It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?

Where do you get your 98% figure from?

And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?


----------



## sakinago

WinterBorn said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, as I said before, is that Terri Schiavo's survival did not require co-opting someone else's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am being consistent.  No one forces the mother to keep the baby.  She can surrender it.   But forcing her to carry it to term forces her to have her body co-opted and changed against her will.
Click to expand...

Not against her will, that is what happens with reproduction. I don't want a hangover when I drink a lot, but that is what happens when I do.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF are you talking about? *Again*, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of  27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?
> 
> Where do you get your 98% figure from?
> 
> And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.


----------



## sakinago

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
Click to expand...

So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your views


----------



## ScienceRocks

WinterBorn said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, as I said before, is that Terri Schiavo's survival did not require co-opting someone else's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am being consistent.  No one forces the mother to keep the baby.  She can surrender it.   But forcing her to carry it to term forces her to have her body co-opted and changed against her will.
Click to expand...


She should stop fucking...Who wants to fuck someone that has no responsibility?


----------



## Noomi

Nice propaganda video the lifers are sure to jump all over.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF are you talking about? *Again*, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of  27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?
> 
> Where do you get your 98% figure from?
> 
> And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?
Click to expand...

Looked it up, I was right, around 80%. So do you pull the plug on Sheri tiavo?


----------



## Lilah

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
Click to expand...





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
Click to expand...


The Fetal Protection Act is upheld in 39 states, and the Unborn Victim Violence Act is upheld in 29 states.
There is also a Preborn Victims of Violence Act.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> 
> 
> And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF are you talking about? *Again*, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of  27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?
> 
> Where do you get your 98% figure from?
> 
> And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.
Click to expand...

Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.

I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your views
Click to expand...

That's the argument those who can't win an argument make. Using that nonsense means no Constitutional law is right.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about? *Again*, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of  27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?
> 
> Where do you get your 98% figure from?
> 
> And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.
> 
> I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.
Click to expand...

How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway. 

So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> 
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your views
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the argument those who can't win an argument make. Using that nonsense means no Constitutional law is right.
Click to expand...

No, it just means that not all have been right. We've clearly been wrong about very important things in the past, it's daft to assume we are doing everything right now. Especially with a scotus that disagrees with it's own rulings 2 years later, how does that sound consistent?


----------



## Cecilie1200

PK1 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Innocent lives are innocent lives, how many baby calves doses it take to make veal?And all those juicy delicious bovines.All those  McWoppers, lots of innocent bovines  died for your sins, I am tired of this bullshit. Wow.You are not interested in protecting  the innocent, just more sanctimonious bul-loney.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, seriously, how many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, and from what height?
> 
> Get off my screen, get medication, get help.  Dismissed, flatliner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, Someone was a little tiny  bit pissed off. Good. I support the death penalty (even though a few innocent people have been put to death, and our troops, (even though they have harmed  a few innocent civilians). I drive a car even though plenty of innocent  people are killed in car accidents.We support firearms even though plenty of innocent  folks are murdered by them every freekin day. How about this, sis, condescend to my level and think about this across the board, not just a narrow topic. Innocent people die every moment of every day, that is a fact. Gods will, all that mumbo jumbo. Get over yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> I also support the death penalty, but only for 100% certainty of guilt after a fair trial.
> And speaking of God's will, it's certain that at least half of fertilized eggs get aborted naturally (*miscarriage); most occur before the woman realizes she was pregnant.*
> 
> Shall we give God the death penalty?
> Or was it the Devil and God's a pussy in not stopping him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is outrageous, they just gave John Holmes ( the Aurora theater shooter) life in jail for shooting all those innocent people, same thing with Dexter Lewis, murdered 5 innocent people in cold blood. A life sentence. Does innocence figure in here in any way? Where is god in  this mess? Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> A "bleeding liberal" can argue that these murderers had been influenced by their unfortunate upbringing, and therefore, it's not their fault.
> Or, the devil made them do it.
> 
> Regardless of the excuses, I take the practical approach. We should kill them  off & remove their "suffering" immediately. This will save us some gov budget funds that can go toward education for the other/younger unfortunate people who were born in poor development environments.
Click to expand...


Or we could spend the money on assistance for victims of violent crimes, like the people those criminals harmed.


----------



## Cecilie1200

PK1 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, seriously, how many times did your mother drop you on your head as a baby, and from what height?
> 
> Get off my screen, get medication, get help.  Dismissed, flatliner.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Someone was a little tiny  bit pissed off. Good. I support the death penalty (even though a few innocent people have been put to death, and our troops, (even though they have harmed  a few innocent civilians). I drive a car even though plenty of innocent  people are killed in car accidents.We support firearms even though plenty of innocent  folks are murdered by them every freekin day. How about this, sis, condescend to my level and think about this across the board, not just a narrow topic. Innocent people die every moment of every day, that is a fact. Gods will, all that mumbo jumbo. Get over yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> I also support the death penalty, but only for 100% certainty of guilt after a fair trial.
> And speaking of God's will, it's certain that at least half of fertilized eggs get aborted naturally (*miscarriage); most occur before the woman realizes she was pregnant.*
> 
> Shall we give God the death penalty?
> Or was it the Devil and God's a pussy in not stopping him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is outrageous, they just gave John Holmes ( the Aurora theater shooter) life in jail for shooting all those innocent people, same thing with Dexter Lewis, murdered 5 innocent people in cold blood. A life sentence. Does innocence figure in here in any way? Where is god in  this mess? Wow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> A "bleeding liberal" can argue that these murderers had been influenced by their unfortunate upbringing, and therefore, it's not their fault.
> Or, the devil made them do it.
> 
> Regardless of the excuses, I take the practical approach. We should kill them  off & remove their "suffering" immediately. This will save us some gov budget funds that can go toward education for the other/younger unfortunate people who were born in poor development environments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> And we should "traffic" their body parts to help others in medical need
Click to expand...


I could kind of see medication donation of the corpses of executed criminals.  We do have a precedent in laws that make property used in the commission of crimes forfeit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's obviously not what I'm basing it on. and if you can't answer the hypothetical nor think a few steps further than you should not be in this discussion, and the repercussion that go along with it.
> 
> Hypothetically...let's say there is a woman named Sheri Tiavo, been so called brain dead for a few years. Husband wants to pull life support, doctors say, Oh my god she is getting better, give her a few months and she'll make a full recovery. Is it then still ok for the husband to pull the plug.
> 
> Carried to term, what's that 27 week "embryo" (pretty much fully developed baby) chances of survival? Or a 16 week embryo, carried to term, what's the chances of it's survival?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
Click to expand...


"We shouldn't have laws protecting fetuses, because we don't have laws protecting fetuses!"

Leftist-think is the best source of circular "logic" I've ever seen.


----------



## sakinago

Cecilie1200 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "We shouldn't have laws protecting fetuses, because we don't have laws protecting fetuses!"
> 
> Leftist-think is the best source of circular "logic" I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

It really is, winter born and care4all are the only ones who can hold a two way conversation


----------



## Cecilie1200

Matthew said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because a woman's rights supercede that of an unborn child and the state cannot force a woman to be pregnant against her wishes.
> 
> And your question was irrelevant because it wasn't based in reality. A 27 week old embryo does not have a 98% chance of being born alive.
> 
> 
> 
> And carried to term what are the chances of survival, and with those chances is it ok then to kill of Sherri tiavo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, as I said before, is that Terri Schiavo's survival did not require co-opting someone else's body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breastfeeding, human touch, all requires co- opting the body and is necessary for the babys survival. By law the mother is responsible to provide that, or gets locked up for neglect. Be consistent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am being consistent.  No one forces the mother to keep the baby.  She can surrender it.   But forcing her to carry it to term forces her to have her body co-opted and changed against her will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She should stop fucking...Who wants to fuck someone that has no responsibility?
Click to expand...


Um, there are bars at 2 am just full of guys who do.  Just sayin' . . .


----------



## Cecilie1200

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> 
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your views
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the argument those who can't win an argument make. Using that nonsense means no Constitutional law is right.
Click to expand...


No, using that logic means law is not morality, and shouldn't be treated as such.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about? *Again*, the chances of a 27 week old embryo surviving are not 98%. Where do you get that figure from? Meanwhile, the chances of Teri Schiavo recovering were somewhere in the neighborhood fo zero percent. Yet said it is ok to terminate a pregnancy where the child had such extensive brain damage, it would never recover -- how come you don't believe the same about Teri Schiavo?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of  27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?
> 
> Where do you get your 98% figure from?
> 
> And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.
> 
> I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.
> 
> So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument
Click to expand...

You really have no clue what you're talking about.  Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about Teri schaivo, but our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo. And what are the stats then for survival of  27 week embryo if you carry it to TERM. Do you know what carry to term means? Look up those stats, then apply it to our hypothetical Sherri Tiavo, then tell me if it's ok to kill Sherri
> 
> 
> 
> It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?
> 
> Where do you get your 98% figure from?
> 
> And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.
> 
> I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.
> 
> So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have no clue what you're talking about.  Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.
Click to expand...

I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point. 

Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?
> 
> Where do you get your 98% figure from?
> 
> And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.
> 
> I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.
> 
> So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have no clue what you're talking about.  Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.
> 
> Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?
Click to expand...

I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.

_"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery *in 3 months* with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever *if you can see where I'm going with this.* Nowbe consistent."_​
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.
> 
> I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.
> 
> So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have no clue what you're talking about.  Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.
> 
> Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.
> 
> _"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery *in 3 months* with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever *if you can see where I'm going with this.* Nowbe consistent."_​
> Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.
Click to expand...

Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?


----------



## aris2chat

PK1 said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were.  His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.
> 
> Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America.  Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> The "_atrocities against women_" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
> A rather egocentric view.
Click to expand...



Why is this not about men not wearing condoms or not using them properly?  Why is it the women that have to be on birth control?  Women have the burden of what happens after men have sex.  Men should be the ones more responsible when they unzip their fly


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.
> 
> I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.
> 
> 
> 
> How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.
> 
> So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have no clue what you're talking about.  Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.
> 
> Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.
> 
> _"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery *in 3 months* with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever *if you can see where I'm going with this.* Nowbe consistent."_​
> Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?
Click to expand...

WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance? 

Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.

You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) *IN* 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born *IN* 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> And his clinic was reported over and over and the reports were ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they were.  His clinic was also largely ignored by the pro-life movement, beacuse, hey those weren't white women getting abortions.
> 
> Gosnell proves it sucks to be poor and black in America.  Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What it proves is progressives will cover up any atrocities against women that hamper their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ---
> The "_atrocities against women_" are being perpetrated by Cons who only see things "their way or the highway".
> A rather egocentric view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this not about men not wearing condoms or not using them properly?  Why is it the women that have to be on birth control?  Women have the burden of what happens after men have sex.  Men should be the ones more responsible when they unzip their fly
Click to expand...

 
Well, for starters, because women are the ones doing the most bitching and whining about how their own biology is some "misogynistic curse and nightmare and punishment".  Also, because medical science has yet to produce a male contraceptive that is as effective as female contraceptives, so a sensible human being - I realize how few liberal women that actually includes, thank you - would want the best shot at effectiveness.

Women don't have a "burden of what happens after men have sex".  They have the biological reality of what happens after THEY engage in sex.  I have zero patience with this whole "I am just a helpless, unengaged object of others' lust" riff.  Unless you were raped - and statistically speaking, you weren't, so get over it - this was mutual, and not an "atrocity".


----------



## aris2chat

BullKurtz said:


> Abortionists make BIG money....I suggest they should face a BIG risk in return....George Tiller for example:



your avatar is offensive and threatening.  Are you suggesting more people should be shot?

That that work in clinics have family and friends.  They provide services for the community.  It is a woman's choice to walk into a clinic, no one is dragging her kicking a screaming by her hair into the clinics.

It is her body and if she is not ready to carry and give birth, that is her right to choose.  Not all women should be mothers, and not all even wants to be told when they have to be mothers.  If a woman finds out she is pregnant and decides she is going to drink and take drugs the whole nine months because she is unhappy, the fetus/infant will be the one to suffer.  It is her right to care for her body or not, but people want to force her to carry a fetus she has no love or desire.  Not only are 'you' making her carry and child, but you would control her habits and actions during those months as well?  She could be so depressed that she jumps in front of a car or crash her car into a tree.  'You' care to have a fetus carried to term, but not for what happens to the women or the fetus during or after the term...........then you want to shoot doctors and clinic workers for doing their work and helping the women??????

So you would kill without trial or law to save a fetus the women does not even want?  You would risk her life by ruining her and forcing her to carry a child?  If she is so depressed, she might kill the child or just let it die after birth, and then what, jail?

How many lives are you going to destroy to save a fetus that the male partner implanted in the first place?

Why should women suffer for 15 minutes of a male's pleasure?

Back street abortions are dangerous which was the intent if providing clinics for women.  Send them back to the streets and there will be more deaths on your hands.

There is no guarantee that if a women were to carry and give birth that the child would go to a good home, grow up happy and live a long healthy life and be an upstanding member of the community.

Hormones do strange things to women during pregnancy, and after.  For some it is almost like being semi bi-polar for nine months.  A woman has to really want to be a mother and get all the care and attention she deserves during that time.  Hormones also make a women see and touch the baby or reject it totally after birth.  They affect the breasts to produce milk, which can be quite painful sometimes.  Pregnancy is not a piece of cake for women, and when they call it labor, they mean just that.  It can last a couple of days unless the baby goes into distress.

If men cannot carry a fetus and give birth, they should not tell a woman to, if it is not her desire to do so.


----------



## BullKurtz

aris2chat said:


> your avatar is offensive and threatening.  Are you suggesting more people should be shot?
> 
> That that work in clinics have family and friends.  They provide services for the community.  It is a woman's choice to walk into a clinic, no one is dragging her kicking a screaming by her hair into the clinics.
> 
> It is her body and if she is not ready to carry and give birth, that is her right to choose.  Not all women should be mothers, and not all even wants to be told when they have to be mothers.  If a woman finds out she is pregnant and decides she is going to drink and take drugs the whole nine months because she is unhappy, the fetus/infant will be the one to suffer.  It is her right to care for her body or not, but people want to force her to carry a fetus she has no love or desire.  Not only are 'you' making her carry and child, but you would control her habits and actions during those months as well?  She could be so depressed that she jumps in front of a car or crash her car into a tree.  'You' care to have a fetus carried to term, but not for what happens to the women or the fetus during or after the term...........then you want to shoot doctors and clinic workers for doing their work and helping the women??????
> 
> So you would kill without trial or law to save a fetus the women does not even want?  You would risk her life by ruining her and forcing her to carry a child?  If she is so depressed, she might kill the child or just let it die after birth, and then what, jail?
> 
> How many lives are you going to destroy to save a fetus that the male partner implanted in the first place?
> 
> Why should women suffer for 15 minutes of a male's pleasure?
> 
> Back street abortions are dangerous which was the intent if providing clinics for women.  Send them back to the streets and there will be more deaths on your hands.
> 
> There is no guarantee that if a women were to carry and give birth that the child would go to a good home, grow up happy and live a long healthy life and be an upstanding member of the community.
> 
> Hormones do strange things to women during pregnancy, and after.  For some it is almost like being semi bi-polar for nine months.  A woman has to really want to be a mother and get all the care and attention she deserves during that time.  Hormones also make a women see and touch the baby or reject it totally after birth.  They affect the breasts to produce milk, which can be quite painful sometimes.  Pregnancy is not a piece of cake for women, and when they call it labor, they mean just that.  It can last a couple of days unless the baby goes into distress.
> 
> If men cannot carry a fetus and give birth, they should not tell a woman to, if it is not her desire to do so.



No, it is not her body.....it's her child's body and she has no right to have it murdered and it's parts sold to the highest bidder.  As to my avatar I'm DElighted you find it "offensive and threatening".  It shows you jump to idiotic conclusions same as your rant about murdering the unborn.   But because I'm a kind and caring fella and to ease your brittle little mind, the .357 ISN'T LOADED....or is it?


----------



## aris2chat

~~~~~~~~~~~~

first term the fetus is not 'chopped' in a normal procedure.  They just sort of do a D & C and it passes how every the lining of the uterus chooses to expel the tissue.  It is not like they amputate each piece in the uterus with purpose.  The more intact the pieces and lining are, the less chance of infection or blood poisoning.
Late term, the fetus is too big to come out on its own.  That is a medical procedure for the safety/life of the woman or because the fetus could not survive more than a short time or be born dead.  It is not a 'contraceptive' choice.   If they can avoid it, they do not open the uterus like a C-section to remove the fetus.

Why do outsiders want to dictate to doctors or patient how to practice medicine??  They try to do the minimal of damage to the woman in the process.  The woman is the first patient, they are trying to help.  After the fetus is born live, then the fetus becomes its own patient with a different set if doctors and specialists.

Till the fetus is detached and takes its first real breath and cry to clear its lungs of fluid, the mother is the patient on record.  It is her body to decide with the doctor what is best for her.

Unless you are the doctor of record, you have no say how the patient and Dr. should proceed.  Stop practicing blind hypothetical message board medicine.  Each patient has her own need and condition.  Not all women are the same, have the same family or financial circumstance nor can they be treated like robots on an assembly line.  The only right answer is the one that makes the patient the most happy/comfortable


----------



## BullKurtz

So how do you kill 58 million babies. Answer: You lie. What are the lies?
*
I am pro-choice*
No. You're pro-abortion. As a pro-lifer I'm more pro-choice than any pro-choice person. Babies grow up to be old people and make millions of choices in their lives. An aborted baby never gets the chance to make a single choice. Stop lying. Call yourself pro-abortion.
*
My body, my choice.*
No. It's not your body. It's somebody else's body who is borrowing yours. Your body has your DNA. This body has DNA that is unique. Stop lying. It's not your body.

*It's about women's health.*
No. It's about whether or not you are allowed to kill babies. Women's health is a different issue. Abortion in the name of convenience is not in the name of health. You're still lying.

*It's just a clump of cells.*
You're just a clump of cells too.

*They don't feel pain.*
That's just a bold faced lie. All second trimester babies feel pain at being cut up and aborted. But when did "pain" suddenly become the defining element in being human? There is a medical condition adults can have called "analgesia"--the lack of sensibility to pain. These people can't feel pain. So. . .are they less than human? Is it okay to kill them because they won't feel pain? Now that you mention it, is it okay to kill anybody by, say, carbon monoxide poisoning since they just fall asleep painlessly and never wake up? Stop lying to yourself about pain being a factor.

*It's not a baby. *
It's a zygote, embryo, or fetus.It's an early stage human being with a unique DNA character that has never occurred before and will never happen again. We humans value uniqueness. We embrace it. It is evil and despotic to ignore our uniqueness and demand we all be the same like bricks in a wall. It is the unique DNA combination that first establishes our uniqueness. Killing that unique combination strikes at the core of being human. It's not just a zygote. Stop lying to yourself.
*
It's legal so it's okay.*
You're substituting legality for morality. In Germany, it was legally preferred to starve and kill Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, gypsies, and handicapped people and so people turned a blind eye to it. Everybody who performs, requests, and supports abortions knows they are killing babies. They just turn a blind eye to it.

This is the American Holocaust. We said, "Never again," and yet here we are doing it again--not just watching it but leading the charge. The death toll of abortion dwarfs the genocide of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao combined.


----------



## aris2chat

BullKurtz said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> your avatar is offensive and threatening.  Are you suggesting more people should be shot?
> 
> That that work in clinics have family and friends.  They provide services for the community.  It is a woman's choice to walk into a clinic, no one is dragging her kicking a screaming by her hair into the clinics.
> 
> It is her body and if she is not ready to carry and give birth, that is her right to choose.  Not all women should be mothers, and not all even wants to be told when they have to be mothers.  If a woman finds out she is pregnant and decides she is going to drink and take drugs the whole nine months because she is unhappy, the fetus/infant will be the one to suffer.  It is her right to care for her body or not, but people want to force her to carry a fetus she has no love or desire.  Not only are 'you' making her carry and child, but you would control her habits and actions during those months as well?  She could be so depressed that she jumps in front of a car or crash her car into a tree.  'You' care to have a fetus carried to term, but not for what happens to the women or the fetus during or after the term...........then you want to shoot doctors and clinic workers for doing their work and helping the women??????
> 
> So you would kill without trial or law to save a fetus the women does not even want?  You would risk her life by ruining her and forcing her to carry a child?  If she is so depressed, she might kill the child or just let it die after birth, and then what, jail?
> 
> How many lives are you going to destroy to save a fetus that the male partner implanted in the first place?
> 
> Why should women suffer for 15 minutes of a male's pleasure?
> 
> Back street abortions are dangerous which was the intent if providing clinics for women.  Send them back to the streets and there will be more deaths on your hands.
> 
> There is no guarantee that if a women were to carry and give birth that the child would go to a good home, grow up happy and live a long healthy life and be an upstanding member of the community.
> 
> Hormones do strange things to women during pregnancy, and after.  For some it is almost like being semi bi-polar for nine months.  A woman has to really want to be a mother and get all the care and attention she deserves during that time.  Hormones also make a women see and touch the baby or reject it totally after birth.  They affect the breasts to produce milk, which can be quite painful sometimes.  Pregnancy is not a piece of cake for women, and when they call it labor, they mean just that.  It can last a couple of days unless the baby goes into distress.
> 
> If men cannot carry a fetus and give birth, they should not tell a woman to, if it is not her desire to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not her body.....it's her child's body and she has no right to have it murdered and it's parts sold to the highest bidder.  As to my avatar I'm DElighted you find it "offensive and threatening".  It shows you jump to idiotic conclusions same as your rant about murdering the unborn.   But because I'm a kind and caring fella and to ease your brittle little mind, the .357 ISN'T LOADED....or is it?
Click to expand...


Not till it leaves her body and it takes its first real breath after seperation.  Doctors treat the mother and she has the right to request treatment or refuse.  If doctors tell her take meds or to do something, it is her choice.  If the dr says bed rest and she gets up and goes skydiving, it is her choice.  The fetus is part of her body and she can care for it or care less about it.  She can seek medical care or carry on a wild lifestyle.

The baby is only a patient is the women seek care for it and follows through.  Till it is born, the mother is the patient of record and only that name is the one to speak to the doctor and make decisions


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because I looked it up, I know it's not 98%. Now why aren't you answering my questions?
> 
> Where do you get your 98% figure from?
> 
> And why are you against Teri Schiavo's feeding tube being removed when you feel it's ok to terminate a pregnancy with a similar prognosis?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing somewhere around 80% if it was born premature. Not my field of medicine. But when carried to term (the end of the pregnancy), what are the chances of survival??? I've said this many times and you keep seeming to miss it, which means you don't understand, or don't want to understand the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because that wasn't your analogy. Your analogy was .... would it be ok to terminate the life of a person like Teri Schiavo if doctors said she had a 98% chance of a full recovery in 3 months. In terms of an unborn child, that's like asking if it's ok to terminate a pregnancy if doctors said the 27 week old embryo had a 98% chance of being born alive in 3 months.
> 
> I knew you didn't know what the hell you're talking abiut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.
> 
> So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really have no clue what you're talking about.  Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.
> 
> Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?
Click to expand...


Hyp:
If a married couple have sex, even protected sex and it fails, Her health is an issue and she should not carry a child or risk her life, can she choose to have an abortion or carry the child, die and leave a husband an child alone?  Why can't the husband and wife choose each other for a long life and not have children?

Not all women can or should carry and give birth.  not all women want to.  Now many opt for a serogate to carry the child instead.......and the serogate can then keep the child of their seed and experience as her own.

Every woman and life situation is unique and only she can make the choice for what is best for her and her life.

You can't make a blank statement that all women have to carry every pregnancy term no matter what.  Life is not like that and nor should outsiders expect every women to be mandated breeding machines when many times that man is not around in the picture.  Not all men are willing to step forward, or they lie about their circumstances (ie.not married, job, healthy, vasectomy, etc.).

There has to be safe options for women available.  You can't just ban the procedure for every circumstance without exceptions and individual agreement between patient and doctor.  Rape, cancer, mental deficiency, birth defect, life of mother........................

Get out of a woman's medical records and stop demanding that medical treatment be only one way and not individual to the patient.  Stop forcing women into slavery for nine months or 19 yrs.  Stop practicing medicine on the message boards without a license or patient history.  Stop legislating medical care rather than letting the doctor and patient decide the care.

Stop enslaving others.  Choice, free choice is part of our rights for good reason.  Life liberty and happiness begin with the woman and not a few cells that are a tumor inside a woman.  Woman first, fetus/infant second with consent of woman.  Infant is only first after it is born, not before.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does that change the argument. I'm confused as to why you can say it's not ok to pull the plug at 98%, and not be able to give an answer on 80%? Because that was not the original number I gave? Which I have not been speaking to a 27 week premie, but I gave that number anyway.
> 
> So faun, what is it that happens when you carry a baby to term...a very large majority of the time you deliver a baby. Which is where the argument comes into place with the doctors saying, my original number, 3 months and Sheri tiavo will recover. Does it change the argument if I were to say 6 months and Sheri will recover? Is it ok to pull the plug? No, it doesn't change the argument
> 
> 
> 
> You really have no clue what you're talking about.  Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.
> 
> Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.
> 
> _"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery *in 3 months* with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever *if you can see where I'm going with this.* Nowbe consistent."_​
> Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?
> 
> Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) *IN* 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born *IN* 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?
Click to expand...

Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby. 

I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.


----------



## aris2chat

BullKurtz said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> your avatar is offensive and threatening.  Are you suggesting more people should be shot?
> 
> That that work in clinics have family and friends.  They provide services for the community.  It is a woman's choice to walk into a clinic, no one is dragging her kicking a screaming by her hair into the clinics.
> 
> It is her body and if she is not ready to carry and give birth, that is her right to choose.  Not all women should be mothers, and not all even wants to be told when they have to be mothers.  If a woman finds out she is pregnant and decides she is going to drink and take drugs the whole nine months because she is unhappy, the fetus/infant will be the one to suffer.  It is her right to care for her body or not, but people want to force her to carry a fetus she has no love or desire.  Not only are 'you' making her carry and child, but you would control her habits and actions during those months as well?  She could be so depressed that she jumps in front of a car or crash her car into a tree.  'You' care to have a fetus carried to term, but not for what happens to the women or the fetus during or after the term...........then you want to shoot doctors and clinic workers for doing their work and helping the women??????
> 
> So you would kill without trial or law to save a fetus the women does not even want?  You would risk her life by ruining her and forcing her to carry a child?  If she is so depressed, she might kill the child or just let it die after birth, and then what, jail?
> 
> How many lives are you going to destroy to save a fetus that the male partner implanted in the first place?
> 
> Why should women suffer for 15 minutes of a male's pleasure?
> 
> Back street abortions are dangerous which was the intent if providing clinics for women.  Send them back to the streets and there will be more deaths on your hands.
> 
> There is no guarantee that if a women were to carry and give birth that the child would go to a good home, grow up happy and live a long healthy life and be an upstanding member of the community.
> 
> Hormones do strange things to women during pregnancy, and after.  For some it is almost like being semi bi-polar for nine months.  A woman has to really want to be a mother and get all the care and attention she deserves during that time.  Hormones also make a women see and touch the baby or reject it totally after birth.  They affect the breasts to produce milk, which can be quite painful sometimes.  Pregnancy is not a piece of cake for women, and when they call it labor, they mean just that.  It can last a couple of days unless the baby goes into distress.
> 
> If men cannot carry a fetus and give birth, they should not tell a woman to, if it is not her desire to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not her body.....it's her child's body and she has no right to have it murdered and it's parts sold to the highest bidder.  As to my avatar I'm DElighted you find it "offensive and threatening".  It shows you jump to idiotic conclusions same as your rant about murdering the unborn.   But because I'm a kind and caring fella and to ease your brittle little mind, the .357 ISN'T LOADED....or is it?
Click to expand...


If the woman does not want to carry a fetus to term and give birth, make the man carry it!
When 3D printers can produce a working uterus that can be transplanted into a man and have a fetus in the first few weeks of conception implanted, then make the man give up work for appointments and sickness, good food only, no drinking, not dangerous activities, not travel in the last few weeks, often not being able to keep a job during pregnancy, employers not covering prenatal or other medical care...................

Make a man carry for nine months for each time he wants sex up to 12 or so times............

Let the man raise the children while keeping a full time job and getting the kids out t school, sports, music, etc., every day in sickness and health or the father and all children....................

Tell him he has no choice in his life now or the next 19 yrs.

Tell him he has no rights over his own body.

Tell him he is limited to only certain types of medical treatment.

Are you out of your mind??????

Stop telling a woman any and all of the above.

Teach men to get a vasectomy and carry proof and only reverse it when the woman signs a contract to be a parent in full equal partnership for life, even if the couple can't live together after a certain point.

Implant a male 'pill' under the skin of his testicles till both members agree they are ready to be parents.  Make him go though the hormones each month and during the nine months of gestation and longer if nursing.  Let men suffer breast pain.  Let men get stretched out of shape and then expected to fit in a sexy swimsuit a month later.
Let men live with stretch marks that don't fade.  Let men waddle out of deformity and can't get in or out of a seat by themselves.

No man should tell a woman when to have a baby or that she has no choice.  Women are not property, they are human beings.

Stay out of her womb, body or life.

Live you own life and stop telling her she cannot live her own.

Are you going to ban artificial and extraordinary means to have children?  Why tell a woman she has to have children then?

Women have it tough enough already without more demands by those who do not know her.


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really have no clue what you're talking about.  Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.
> 
> 
> 
> I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.
> 
> Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.
> 
> _"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery *in 3 months* with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever *if you can see where I'm going with this.* Nowbe consistent."_​
> Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?
> 
> Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) *IN* 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born *IN* 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
Click to expand...


Many people have life directives for medical treatment.  Quality of life is more important than quantity.  Not all those in the last years of life are getting good care or can care for themselves.  Living in a hospital is not pleasant and can be very expensive for the patient and family.  Family can't be there 24/7 for the loved one.

Medical choices have to be made by the patient and/or family.  Doctor need to advise them when enough is enough, not fatten their bank accounts by having life support for the next ten, twenty or thirty years.  At some point the body and the family have to move on with life.

Even after a baby is born, the mother/parent has to make the medical choices for not just the child but for the family as well.  Till a child is an adult it really does not have much say in its care, parents do.  Why should a pregnancy be any different.  The woman/mother makes the decisions, not the children.  Kids would eat sugar and never go to school if they dictated their own lives.

When the parent is the one that cannot make the choices, it is then up to the adult child to make them.  Till that time, parents are the boss, so to speak.  Till a child is an adult out on it's own supporting itself, the parents decide what, when, how, etc. including medical treatment, feed, care, etc.  Kids do not tell parents.  A good family will discuss things, but the parent is the final say.

Fetus do not dictate to the woman, she is the one in control of her body.  She decides what care to give the fetus, or not.  She can decide to live or not.  She can decide if she is ready to be a mother or not.  There are many ways to die, mentally and physically.  Woman mental health is as important as her physical.  If she is not mentally ready, no one should force her.

There are too many child brides, child abuse/rapes, too many preteen and teen sex, to many mentally immature or depressed people having sex (w/wo drugs and alcohol)

Not everyone should have to suffer the rest if their lives for something out of control, including failed birth control or change in medical health of the woman.

How is finding out a fetus has a birth defect and will suffer and live only a short time, if at all, and make a woman carry the fetus to term, pay physically, mentally and financially for the care of the fetus and mourn the fetus and possibly break when the fetus could have been terminated and the couple have another safer option for a healthy child that could get their full love and support through life?  Why dies the fetus/infant have to suffer if there is an option?  Do you expect to make pets and owners suffer till the pet finally expires?  Do they have no choice but going bankrupt in the process and have to take time off work or loose their job to care for the pet that is going to be in pain and die soon?  Every pet owner has no more choice in their life to decide what they do?  You going to force a pet to go through chemo or other extraordinary measure and not understand why their owner is making them suffer?  An owner can't make the pain stop?  Why do others outside of the situation mandate what happens and not let the individuals, vets/doctors decide what is right for all?

16 billion people in the world of every type and you want to legislate a set if rules without exception for everyone to be programed to follow?  Sorry but those are 16 billion individuals, unique and their choices need to be just as unique and individualized.  They are not assembly line cars.  Even they can be temperamental and some are just lemons, factory defaults that can't be fixed and can cause major accidents and take lives.

Justice is not a one size fits all, that is why we have juries and judges.

Why is medicine any different?  There are extenuating circumstances there as well.


----------



## vmgram427

Aris2chat that is such a crock of shit. Women need to be more responsible when opening up and letting the man hit a homerun. I'm not saying the man who is looking to score should be carrying a pocket full of condoms and when it's time put the fricking thing on.  Maybe I grew up during the days when the phrase "No Glove No Love"


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## aris2chat

vmgram427 said:


> Aris2chat that is such a crock of shit. Women need to be more responsible when opening up and letting the man hit a homerun. I'm not saying the man who is looking to score should be carrying a pocket full of condoms and when it's time put the fricking thing on.  Maybe I grew up during the days when the phrase "No Glove No Love"
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



but women are the ones that have to be the rock to a man twice her size?

teach the man, don't punish the woman

glove helps prevent STD as well, but birth control is the woman's responsibility?

Get men to stay zipped.

woman's health and needs comes before some government decision to deny her a choice and dictate to her t be a slave for months or years


----------



## HenryBHough

OK, we get why the (blanket) Indian girl was named "Running Fawn".  Now how about the Indian boy-child named "Broken Rubber"?


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> vmgram427 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aris2chat that is such a crock of shit. Women need to be more responsible when opening up and letting the man hit a homerun. I'm not saying the man who is looking to score should be carrying a pocket full of condoms and when it's time put the fricking thing on.  Maybe I grew up during the days when the phrase "No Glove No Love"
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but women are the ones that have to be the rock to a man twice her size?
> 
> teach the man, don't punish the woman
> 
> glove helps prevent STD as well, but birth control is the woman's responsibility?
> 
> Get men to stay zipped.
> 
> woman's health and needs comes before some government decision to deny her a choice and dictate to her t be a slave for months or years
Click to expand...

Be consistent, if men have so day in women's choice , then they should not be responsible for a child that they did not want.


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> vmgram427 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aris2chat that is such a crock of shit. Women need to be more responsible when opening up and letting the man hit a homerun. I'm not saying the man who is looking to score should be carrying a pocket full of condoms and when it's time put the fricking thing on.  Maybe I grew up during the days when the phrase "No Glove No Love"
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but women are the ones that have to be the rock to a man twice her size?
> 
> teach the man, don't punish the woman
> 
> glove helps prevent STD as well, but birth control is the woman's responsibility?
> 
> Get men to stay zipped.
> 
> woman's health and needs comes before some government decision to deny her a choice and dictate to her t be a slave for months or years
Click to expand...


"Be a rock to a man twice her size"?  No, she's the one who should be a rock to HERSELF.  Personally, as a woman, I'm not dumb enough to count on anyone but me to have my best interests at heart.  And what does "twice her size" have to do with anything?

Birth control is both partners' responsibility, but her personal well-being most definitely is HERS.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really have no clue what you're talking about.  Now you're denying that you were speaking of a 27 week old embryo -- but -- your analogy began with a situation where an a born child had a 98% chance of surviving 3 months later ... 40 weeks of gestation minus 3 months equals the 27th week.
> 
> 
> 
> I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.
> 
> Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.
> 
> _"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery *in 3 months* with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever *if you can see where I'm going with this.* Nowbe consistent."_​
> Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?
> 
> Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) *IN* 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born *IN* 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
Click to expand...

There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vmgram427 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aris2chat that is such a crock of shit. Women need to be more responsible when opening up and letting the man hit a homerun. I'm not saying the man who is looking to score should be carrying a pocket full of condoms and when it's time put the fricking thing on.  Maybe I grew up during the days when the phrase "No Glove No Love"
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but women are the ones that have to be the rock to a man twice her size?
> 
> teach the man, don't punish the woman
> 
> glove helps prevent STD as well, but birth control is the woman's responsibility?
> 
> Get men to stay zipped.
> 
> woman's health and needs comes before some government decision to deny her a choice and dictate to her t be a slave for months or years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be consistent, if men have so day in women's choice , then they should not be responsible for a child that they did not want.
Click to expand...

When men get pregnant, they will be entitled to the same choices as women in terms of terminating their parental obligations.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said many times carried to term. I'm pretty sure you brought up the 27 weeks. I'll ask again, carried to term what is chances of survival? Doesn't get much simpler than that. You have really missed the point.
> 
> Even if you are correct with your assertions, which I don't know why you're subtracting months, just splitting hairs. At 80% do you still kill Sherri?
> 
> 
> 
> I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.
> 
> _"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery *in 3 months* with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever *if you can see where I'm going with this.* Nowbe consistent."_​
> Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?
> 
> Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) *IN* 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born *IN* 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
Click to expand...

An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

> Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks, GOP
> 
> Of course, leading the idiocy parade in the attack on Planned Parenthood is the state of Texas. That state has actually been working overtime to defund Planned Parenthood since before the videos ever hit the news. Now,the _Texas Tribune _reports that, as of September 1, poor women in Texas will no longer be able to receive breast and cervical cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood offices.
> 
> In May, a budget compromise in the Texas legislature changed the way funds were allocated for a joint state-federal program that provides cancer screening for poor, uninsured women
> 
> Addicting Info Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks GOP



Tell us again Republicans how there is no war on women!!



> Statistics from 2014 show just how badly poor women in Texas stand to get hurt. According to the _Texas Tribune:_
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood received 12.7 percent of taxpayer funding for cancer screenings over the past two years
> 16 percent of 11,567 pap smears that were done in 2014 were done at Planned Parenthood clinics
> Out of 2,165 women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer through the screening program in 2014, 161 of them, or 7.4 percent, were diagnosed at a Planned Parenthood clinic


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

We need Charleton Heston more than ever. This is appalling.

Fetal Parts Sold for Scientific Research on Cosmetics Flavor Enhancers - Aleteia


----------



## bucs90




----------



## bucs90

What Tha fuck!!! Says Coca Cola, Campbell's soup, Nestle....and others...all had flavorings that contained kidney cells from aborted fetuses!!!!  We've been consuming dead babies!!! Fucking liberals should burn in hell.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

bucs90 said:


> What Tha fuck!!! Says Coca Cola, Campbell's soup, Nestle....and others...all had flavorings that contained kidney cells from aborted fetuses!!!!  We've been consuming dead babies!!! Fucking liberals should burn in hell.


This is unimaginable.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this


----------



## FA_Q2

!


----------



## theDoctorisIn

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this





It's probably because this bullshit rumor has been going around for years, and has been repeatedly disproven.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

snopes.com Famous Food Companies Caught Using Aborted Babies for Flavor Additives


----------



## SassyIrishLass

theDoctorisIn said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's probably because this bullshit rumor has been going around for years, and has been repeatedly disproven.
Click to expand...


You'ere always big on blather and short on facts, Doc. I stopped taking you serious long ago. Typical left loon.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

theDoctorisIn said:


> snopes.com Famous Food Companies Caught Using Aborted Babies for Flavor Additives



Once again...Snopes is never to be trusted.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

SassyIrishLass said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's probably because this bullshit rumor has been going around for years, and has been repeatedly disproven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'ere always big on blather and short on facts, Doc. I stopped taking you serious long ago. Typical left loon.
Click to expand...




Whatever you say, clown.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

SassyIrishLass said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> snopes.com Famous Food Companies Caught Using Aborted Babies for Flavor Additives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again...Snopes is never to be trusted.
Click to expand...


There is nothing more amusing to me than watching people hold on to their delusions in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's almost like you guys are proud of it.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

theDoctorisIn said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> snopes.com Famous Food Companies Caught Using Aborted Babies for Flavor Additives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again...Snopes is never to be trusted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing more amusing to me than watching people hold on to their delusions in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's almost like you guys are proud of it.
Click to expand...


Bleh...go bother someone who cares. You're all mouth


----------



## S.J.

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this


They'll find a way.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

S.J. said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this
> 
> 
> 
> They'll find a way.
Click to expand...


One of them did, failed miserably but he usually fails miserably


----------



## Mr Natural

The "How do you make a dead baby float" joke comes to mind.


----------



## S.J.

SassyIrishLass said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this
> 
> 
> 
> They'll find a way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of them did, failed miserably but he usually fails miserably
Click to expand...

When Snopes is the only rebuttal you have, you know you've got nothing.


----------



## idb

Steve_McGarrett said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Tha fuck!!! Says Coca Cola, Campbell's soup, Nestle....and others...all had flavorings that contained kidney cells from aborted fetuses!!!!  We've been consuming dead babies!!! Fucking liberals should burn in hell.
> 
> 
> 
> This is unimaginable.
Click to expand...

And yet...someone *has* imagined it, and put it out as the latest meme.

I look forward to tomorrow's fake outrage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

*When Anti-Abortion Propaganda is Accepted as Investigative Journalism - See more at: Eyes Right Blog Political Research Associates
*


> One of the underreported aspects of the current smear campaign against Planned Parenthood is the coarsening and polarizing of our civil discourse that usually accompanies discussions of the culture wars.  This has been especially glaring because the ongoing barrage of false and inflammatory language directed at Planned Parenthood and its staff by anti-abortion groups; and the remarkable disconnect between what is passing for evidence and investigative journalism, and the charges being leveled. -
> 
> These serious, but hyperbolically-stated, charges are based largely on short, manipulatively edited videos produced from hidden camera conversations by the anti-abortion group, Center for Medical Progress (CMP), led by founder David Daleiden who previously served as Director of Research for similar group, Live Action.





> This isn’t the first time anti-choice groups have used the same methods to smear Planned Parenthood and pressure public officials into investigating the women’s health care provider in search of a justification to make PPFA ineligible to receive federal funds on the same basis as everyone else.  (They call it “defunding Planned Parenthood.”) David Daleiden himself served as Director of Research for Live Action during the big smear campaign against PPFA in 2011.
> 
> “In 1999, another anti-abortion group, Life Dynamics, released an ‘undercover’ video claiming that abortion providers were profiting from fetal tissue donation. *The allegations led to a congressional hearing in which the star witness confessed to having been paid over $20,000 by Life Dynamics. He recanted his story, saying under oath that he had lied and that he had no personal knowledge of any instances in which tissue donation programs had violated federal law*. Even legislators who opposed abortion doubted his story and credibility. Then Representative — now Senator — Richard Burr, R-N.C., told the witness: ‘I found there to be so many inconsistencies in your testimony … your credibility, as far as this member is concerned, is shot.’ - See more at: Eyes Right Blog Political Research Associates





> One of the most remarkable aspects of the current controversy is that *few journalists and public officials are seriously scrutinizing this crude propaganda, and are largely allowing an obscure, militant anti-abortion group to cast themselves as investigative journalists* rather than highlighting their agenda and dishonest tactics. Daleiden claims to produce investigative journalism and his lawyers (the Christian Right’s American Center for Law and Justice) characterize Daleiden and his CMP colleague Troy Newman (who also leads the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue) as “investigative journalists.”  _Christianity Today_, the major magazine of evangelical Christianity, called Daleiden a “filmmaker.”  These are very generous descriptions of who these men are, and what they do. - See more at: Eyes Right Blog Political Research Associates


----------



## FA_Q2

S.J. said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this
> 
> 
> 
> They'll find a way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of them did, failed miserably but he usually fails miserably
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Snopes is the only rebuttal you have, you know you've got nothing.
Click to expand...

Why?

There is simply no way to spin this as bias.  Read the snopes claim - it is certainly more credible than the original cited article to say the least and it resoundingly refutes the blanket assertions made by the OP.

It is apparent that those refusing to acknowledge the points brought up WANT to be disillusioned into believing this tripe.  I cannot imagine why though.


----------



## TimothysAlaska

bucs90 said:


> What Tha fuck!!! Says Coca Cola, Campbell's soup, Nestle....and others...all had flavorings that contained kidney cells from aborted fetuses!!!!  We've been consuming dead babies!!! Fucking liberals should burn in hell.


Umm Campbell's soup is a huge republican donator  , so it is liberals fault that republican companies use it?  Wow.  Republican democrats they are the same they just want power the bottom line.  I am sure that there are a lot of other republican companies doing it.  But it is still liberals fault.  Lol


----------



## S.J.

FA_Q2 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this
> 
> 
> 
> They'll find a way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of them did, failed miserably but he usually fails miserably
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Snopes is the only rebuttal you have, you know you've got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> There is simply no way to spin this as bias.  Read the snopes claim - it is certainly more credible than the original cited article to say the least and it resoundingly refutes the blanket assertions made by the OP.
> 
> It is apparent that those refusing to acknowledge the points brought up WANT to be disillusioned into believing this tripe.  I cannot imagine why though.
Click to expand...

Those companies would be suing if it were not true.  You just don't like the fact that they were exposed.  You're the one trying to spin it.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got the 3 month period from you. You're the one introducing a 3 month period to recover and comparing that to a baby being born.
> 
> _"uh-huh and how would you feel if hypothetically multiple MDs said that schiavo would make a full recovery *in 3 months* with 98% accuracy when the husband was trying to pull the plug??? Would that still be right? FYI I just read an article in USA today that said infant mortality rate is the lowest ever *if you can see where I'm going with this.* Nowbe consistent."_​
> Again, you don't know what you're talking about. That much is clear.
> 
> 
> 
> Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?
> 
> Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) *IN* 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born *IN* 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
Click to expand...

Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.


----------



## aris2chat

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?
> 
> Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) *IN* 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born *IN* 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
Click to expand...


it is not just a formula of what will be, but the longer the gestation the better the odds become
there are certain guidelines.  Every circumstance is unique.

Chances for Survival


----------



## aris2chat

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?
> 
> Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) *IN* 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born *IN* 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
Click to expand...


sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks, GOP
> 
> Of course, leading the idiocy parade in the attack on Planned Parenthood is the state of Texas. That state has actually been working overtime to defund Planned Parenthood since before the videos ever hit the news. Now,the _Texas Tribune _reports that, as of September 1, poor women in Texas will no longer be able to receive breast and cervical cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood offices.
> 
> In May, a budget compromise in the Texas legislature changed the way funds were allocated for a joint state-federal program that provides cancer screening for poor, uninsured women
> 
> Addicting Info Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again Republicans how there is no war on women!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics from 2014 show just how badly poor women in Texas stand to get hurt. According to the _Texas Tribune:_
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood received 12.7 percent of taxpayer funding for cancer screenings over the past two years
> 16 percent of 11,567 pap smears that were done in 2014 were done at Planned Parenthood clinics
> Out of 2,165 women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer through the screening program in 2014, 161 of them, or 7.4 percent, were diagnosed at a Planned Parenthood clinic
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
Ehrmagerd, you found an accusation article from AddictingInfo!  We must get right on . . . not giving a fat rat's furry asscrack.

Piss off with your partisan bullshit websites.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cecilie1200 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks, GOP
> 
> Of course, leading the idiocy parade in the attack on Planned Parenthood is the state of Texas. That state has actually been working overtime to defund Planned Parenthood since before the videos ever hit the news. Now,the _Texas Tribune _reports that, as of September 1, poor women in Texas will no longer be able to receive breast and cervical cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood offices.
> 
> In May, a budget compromise in the Texas legislature changed the way funds were allocated for a joint state-federal program that provides cancer screening for poor, uninsured women
> 
> Addicting Info Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again Republicans how there is no war on women!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics from 2014 show just how badly poor women in Texas stand to get hurt. According to the _Texas Tribune:_
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood received 12.7 percent of taxpayer funding for cancer screenings over the past two years
> 16 percent of 11,567 pap smears that were done in 2014 were done at Planned Parenthood clinics
> Out of 2,165 women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer through the screening program in 2014, 161 of them, or 7.4 percent, were diagnosed at a Planned Parenthood clinic
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ehrmagerd, you found an accusation article from AddictingInfo!  We must get right on . . . not giving a fat rat's furry asscrack.
> 
> Piss off with your partisan bullshit websites.
Click to expand...

Try refuting the information instead of attacking the source. But I understand why you have to do that. It's all you have.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks, GOP
> 
> Of course, leading the idiocy parade in the attack on Planned Parenthood is the state of Texas. That state has actually been working overtime to defund Planned Parenthood since before the videos ever hit the news. Now,the _Texas Tribune _reports that, as of September 1, poor women in Texas will no longer be able to receive breast and cervical cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood offices.
> 
> In May, a budget compromise in the Texas legislature changed the way funds were allocated for a joint state-federal program that provides cancer screening for poor, uninsured women
> 
> Addicting Info Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again Republicans how there is no war on women!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics from 2014 show just how badly poor women in Texas stand to get hurt. According to the _Texas Tribune:_
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood received 12.7 percent of taxpayer funding for cancer screenings over the past two years
> 16 percent of 11,567 pap smears that were done in 2014 were done at Planned Parenthood clinics
> Out of 2,165 women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer through the screening program in 2014, 161 of them, or 7.4 percent, were diagnosed at a Planned Parenthood clinic
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ehrmagerd, you found an accusation article from AddictingInfo!  We must get right on . . . not giving a fat rat's furry asscrack.
> 
> Piss off with your partisan bullshit websites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try refuting the information instead of attacking the source. But I understand why you have to do that. It's all you have.
Click to expand...

 
Dipshit, it's not "information".  That's the problem.  Someone should have told you that just because something's on the Internet, that doesn't make it true, doesn't make it serious, and doesn't obligate me to treat it like real news and refute it.  You might as well have cited _The Onion_ and insisted I "refute" it. 

So take your demands for respect and stuff them where the sun don't shine.  You want respect, earn it by citing actual sources, not any bullshit you find lying around.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cecilie1200 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks, GOP
> 
> Of course, leading the idiocy parade in the attack on Planned Parenthood is the state of Texas. That state has actually been working overtime to defund Planned Parenthood since before the videos ever hit the news. Now,the _Texas Tribune _reports that, as of September 1, poor women in Texas will no longer be able to receive breast and cervical cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood offices.
> 
> In May, a budget compromise in the Texas legislature changed the way funds were allocated for a joint state-federal program that provides cancer screening for poor, uninsured women
> 
> Addicting Info Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again Republicans how there is no war on women!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics from 2014 show just how badly poor women in Texas stand to get hurt. According to the _Texas Tribune:_
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood received 12.7 percent of taxpayer funding for cancer screenings over the past two years
> 16 percent of 11,567 pap smears that were done in 2014 were done at Planned Parenthood clinics
> Out of 2,165 women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer through the screening program in 2014, 161 of them, or 7.4 percent, were diagnosed at a Planned Parenthood clinic
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ehrmagerd, you found an accusation article from AddictingInfo!  We must get right on . . . not giving a fat rat's furry asscrack.
> 
> Piss off with your partisan bullshit websites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try refuting the information instead of attacking the source. But I understand why you have to do that. It's all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dipshit, it's not "information".  That's the problem.  Someone should have told you that just because something's on the Internet, that doesn't make it true, doesn't make it serious, and doesn't obligate me to treat it like real news and refute it.  You might as well have cited _The Onion_ and insisted I "refute" it.
> 
> So take your demands for respect and stuff them where the sun don't shine.  You want respect, earn it by citing actual sources, not any bullshit you find lying around.
Click to expand...


My, my...... you do sound as though you are becoming unhinged! So you saying that it's not true that some women are having trouble accessing  cancer screening  in states that have defunded PP? I provided a source that says that they are having problems. If you don't like it, not my problem. Lets see your source that says it is NOT true


----------



## koshergrl

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

"“*If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It’s all just a matter of line items.*”

" “*I think everyone realizes, especially because my department contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States. Larger than any the other affiliates’ combined.*” In a Texas Senate hearing on July 29, former Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast clinic director Abby Johnson estimated that the affiliate had previously made up to $120,000 per month off of aborted fetal tissue."

Ginde responds to the buyer’s suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: “*I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.*”
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).
Ginde also suggests ways for Planned Parenthood to cover-up its criminal and public relations liability for the sale of aborted body parts. “*Putting it under ‘research’ gives us a little bit of an overhang over the whole thing*,” Ginde remarks. “I*f you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.*”

Blog The Center for Medical Progress


----------



## EverCurious

There's different "acceptable" procedures though.  Just like there's 10 different ways to approach any surgery.  Some states likely prohibit certain "methods" - which probably explains the statement.

Not that it matters, facts don't matter to you folks, you want abortion illegalized, you want donations illegalized, but you don't have the balls to just stand up and say that because you know you'd lose that fight.  Snakes in the grass, but hey good luck with your legal attempts, doesn't appear to be going very well atm, but you never know.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

koshergrl said:


> The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).
> 
> "“*If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It’s all just a matter of line items.*”
> 
> " “*I think everyone realizes, especially because my department contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States. Larger than any the other affiliates’ combined.*” In a Texas Senate hearing on July 29, former Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast clinic director Abby Johnson estimated that the affiliate had previously made up to $120,000 per month off of aborted fetal tissue."
> 
> Ginde responds to the buyer’s suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: “*I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.*”
> The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).
> Ginde also suggests ways for Planned Parenthood to cover-up its criminal and public relations liability for the sale of aborted body parts. “*Putting it under ‘research’ gives us a little bit of an overhang over the whole thing*,” Ginde remarks. “I*f you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.*”
> 
> Blog The Center for Medical Progress


Did you miss post 1995 above?


----------



## Skylar

> The cells, called HEK 293 cells (that stands for human embryonic kidney) were taken from an aborted fetus in the 1970s in the Netherlands. Bits of chopped up DNA from the adenovirus, a virus that causes a pretty severe cold. The kidney cells were forced to take up bits of DNA using a technique invented in 1973 that used a calcium solution. The resulting cells don't act much like human cells at all, but they are very easy to work with and have become workhorses of cellular biology. That's why they're used in the development of drugs and vaccines. No new fetal tissue has been used to keep the cell culture going; the use of this cell line isn't leading to new abortions.
> 
> Biotech s Fear Factor - Forbes



So HEK 293 cells are cultured cells from about 40 years ago, originally from a lone human fetal kidney. Since this cell line was created in 1973, its used the same cell cultures, from one generation to the next. Its a copy of a copy of a copy.

Second, there's zero evidence that there is any HEK 293 in any flavor enhancers made by or used by anyone.

Zero. Nada. Zilch.

HEK 293 is used in testing. Not as an ingredient or in production. First, because the sweeteners are artificial chemicals. Second, because HEK 293 is just really expensive. A single vial of HEK 293 will set you back about $350.00.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks, GOP
> 
> Of course, leading the idiocy parade in the attack on Planned Parenthood is the state of Texas. That state has actually been working overtime to defund Planned Parenthood since before the videos ever hit the news. Now,the _Texas Tribune _reports that, as of September 1, poor women in Texas will no longer be able to receive breast and cervical cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood offices.
> 
> In May, a budget compromise in the Texas legislature changed the way funds were allocated for a joint state-federal program that provides cancer screening for poor, uninsured women
> 
> Addicting Info Planned Parenthood Can No Longer Offer Cancer Screenings To Poor Women In Texas. Thanks GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again Republicans how there is no war on women!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistics from 2014 show just how badly poor women in Texas stand to get hurt. According to the _Texas Tribune:_
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood received 12.7 percent of taxpayer funding for cancer screenings over the past two years
> 16 percent of 11,567 pap smears that were done in 2014 were done at Planned Parenthood clinics
> Out of 2,165 women diagnosed with breast or cervical cancer through the screening program in 2014, 161 of them, or 7.4 percent, were diagnosed at a Planned Parenthood clinic
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ehrmagerd, you found an accusation article from AddictingInfo!  We must get right on . . . not giving a fat rat's furry asscrack.
> 
> Piss off with your partisan bullshit websites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try refuting the information instead of attacking the source. But I understand why you have to do that. It's all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dipshit, it's not "information".  That's the problem.  Someone should have told you that just because something's on the Internet, that doesn't make it true, doesn't make it serious, and doesn't obligate me to treat it like real news and refute it.  You might as well have cited _The Onion_ and insisted I "refute" it.
> 
> So take your demands for respect and stuff them where the sun don't shine.  You want respect, earn it by citing actual sources, not any bullshit you find lying around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, my...... you do sound as though you are becoming unhinged! So you saying that it's not true that some women are having trouble accessing  cancer screening  in states that have defunded PP? I provided a source that says that they are having problems. If you don't like it, not my problem. Lets see your source that says it is NOT true
Click to expand...


Only a liberal could view being dismissed as a fucking moron as a win.  I guess y'all would have to, since a) you never accomplish anything else, and b) it happens so often.

What I'm actually saying, Progressive Pathetic, is that unlike you, I require a REAL source of news before I even pay attention, let alone get my panties in a ruffle.  There is no point in time at which I am going to use the reliability of Addicting-fucking-Info as a debate parameter.  I would sooner debate a "fact" reported by the National Inquirer.

"I provided a source that said it."  Big whoop-de-fucking-hairy-do.  I could provide a source that says eating green beans makes you shit Martians, but that doesn't make it true or worthy of debate.

If you don't like being laughed at, that's not MY problem.  If you want other people to do your homework for you, that's ALSO not my problem.  It is not my job to try to prove a negative, or to waste my time researching AddictingInfo like they're worthy of notice.  Produce a real news source, or we'll just assume that you're full of shit and move on to a real grown-up.

Either way, this argument about how to argue is over.  Real source, or surrender.  Your next post will be one or the other.  Up to you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

EverCurious said:


> There's different "acceptable" procedures though.  Just like there's 10 different ways to approach any surgery.  Some states likely prohibit certain "methods" - which probably explains the statement.
> 
> Not that it matters, facts don't matter to you folks, you want abortion illegalized, you want donations illegalized, but you don't have the balls to just stand up and say that because you know you'd lose that fight.  Snakes in the grass, but hey good luck with your legal attempts, doesn't appear to be going very well atm, but you never know.



Facts?  Facts?!  You didn't give us facts.  You gave us speculation and "maybe" and "likely" and "probably".

The only fact I'm seeing in your posts is that you desperately don't want to investigate this accusation and get the FACTS about it.


----------



## EverCurious

Investigate all you want, but I'm one of those who feels a) life does not begin until at least the brain is both formed and functioning and b) if you have to lie to make a point, the whole things a lie.

These videos were a lie because the whole thing is a lie.  You folks want abortion made illegal because your god in the sky said so.  I don't believe in your god in the sky, I believe what /I/ believe, therefore - Life does not begin until a brain is formed and functioning and it's not murder.  The court happens to agree with me therefore I am /not/ wrong in saying that it's not murder.

Change the law, don't lie about it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

EverCurious said:


> Investigate all you want, but I'm one of those who feels a) life does not begin until at least the brain is both formed and functioning and b) if you have to lie to make a point, the whole things a lie.
> 
> These videos were a lie because the whole thing is a lie.  You folks want abortion made illegal because your god in the sky said so.  I don't believe in your god in the sky, I believe what /I/ believe, therefore - Life does not begin until a brain is formed and functioning and it's not murder.  The court happens to agree with me therefore I am /not/ wrong in saying that it's not murder.
> 
> Change the law, don't lie about it.



Well, so much for your "facts".  You just cited me your "feeling" about a biological fact that contradicts you.  Since science clearly isn't your wheelhouse, how's about you try something simple like identifying any lie I've ever told on this board (Hint:  "I don't like it" is NOT the definition of "lie")?

How do you know the videos and the accusation are lies?  You sure as shit haven't evidenced any curiosity about investigating and finding out.  As for lies, you just made an affirmative assertion about my motivations and beliefs, and you don't know me from your left elbow, Chuckles.  You're just making an assumption and throwing it out there as a solid truth, which makes me convinced that you wouldn't know a lie if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left asscheek.

G'head.  Cite me any time that I have EVER said that I oppose abortion because God said so.  Or any lie that I have ever told at all.  I dare you.


----------



## g5000

Shit, it has been more than two  years since I heard this bullshit.  And now here it is again.  I'm just going to post exactly what I posted back in 2013.

Here is how it works.

Way back in 1972, a fetus was aborted in the Netherlands. Inside that fetus were some itty bitty kidney cells. Those itty bitty kidneys cells have been cultured and descendant cells have been grown from them.

Whatever cells Senomyx used are who knows how many generations removed from the original cells. Senomyx is the actual company which created the flavor enhancers used by Pepsi.

Senomyx is not the only company which uses this line of cells. Many vaccines, drugs, and tasty foods have been developed through the use of these cells.

Anyway, Senomyx then forced the cells to take up tiny pieces of DNA from an adenovirus. 

The result is new cells which are not human in any way, but which have a weird and serendipitous characteristic. They have receptors shaped identically to certain taste receptors you have in your mouth.

A receptor is like a keyhole. And the flavor molecule is like a key. The trick is to create a flavor molecule that fits in the receptor.

If the flavor enhancer fits in the artificially created receptor, then it will fit into the taste receptors in your mouth.

(cue _Weird Science_ by Oingo Boingo)


So if you drink Pepsi with those flavor enhancers, you are not consuming the fetal cells. Nor are you consuming their descendants. Nor are you consuming bits of adenovirus. You are consuming flavor enhancers which fit perfectly in your mouth.


----------



## EverCurious

I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.

Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.

The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.

Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?


----------



## Vigilante

Just expressing some OPINIONS on the subject...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Breaking: Soylent Green Is Fetuses (Fetal Parts Sold For Flavor Enhancers"

Another ridiculous lie from the right.

Most conservatives aren't interested in facts or the truth; they seek only to repeat the same lie over again in the hope it's perceived to be true.


----------



## Skylar

g5000 said:


> Shit, it has been more than two  years since I heard this bullshit.  And now here it is again.  I'm just going to post exactly what I posted back in 2013.
> 
> Here is how it works.
> 
> Way back in 1972, a fetus was aborted in the Netherlands. Inside that fetus were some itty bitty kidney cells. Those itty bitty kidneys cells have been cultured and descendant cells have been grown from them.
> 
> Whatever cells Senomyx used are who knows how many generations removed from the original cells. Senomyx is the actual company which created the flavor enhancers used by Pepsi.
> 
> Senomyx is not the only company which uses this line of cells. Many vaccines, drugs, and tasty foods have been developed through the use of these cells.
> 
> Anyway, Senomyx then forced the cells to take up tiny pieces of DNA from an adenovirus.
> 
> The result is new cells which are not human in any way, but which have a weird and serendipitous characteristic. They have receptors shaped identically to certain taste receptors you have in your mouth.
> 
> A receptor is like a keyhole. And the flavor molecule is like a key. The trick is to create a flavor molecule that fits in the receptor.
> 
> If the flavor enhancer fits in the artificially created receptor, then it will fit into the taste receptors in your mouth.
> 
> (cue _Weird Science_ by Oingo Boingo)
> 
> 
> So if you drink Pepsi with those flavor enhancers, you are not consuming the fetal cells. Nor are you consuming their descendants. Nor are you consuming bits of adenovirus. You are consuming flavor enhancers which fit perfectly in your mouth.



Exactly. The HEK 293 cells are used to test if the flavor enhancers work. If the HEK 293 cells will connect with the flavor enhancers, then so will the flavor receptors on the tongue.

The flavor enhancers aren't made of HEK cells anymore than your Hanes underwear is made of Inspector 12.


----------



## EverCurious

I can make a ton of pictures that agree with my opinion as well.  Doesn't mean anything, except to idiots who are easily swayed and controlled.


----------



## g5000

Skylar said:


> The flavor enhancers aren't made of HEK cells anymore than your Hanes underwear is made of Inspector 12.


----------



## Skylar

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Breaking: Soylent Green Is Fetuses (Fetal Parts Sold For Flavor Enhancers"
> 
> Another ridiculous lie from the right.
> 
> Most conservatives aren't interested in facts or the truth; they seek only to repeat the same lie over again in the hope it's perceived to be true.



That is literally true. There really is no interest in whether or not a particular claim is true. Only if it feels true. If  it feels true, then any random email making any unfounded and baseless claim is gospel. And any evidence is to be ignored.

Exactly as we've seen in this thread.


----------



## EverCurious

meh they're just trying on the liberal "feelings" platform, can't blame them really, it's been working great and swaying votes heh


----------



## BluesLegend

God damn even I underestimated the evil of the left.


----------



## Carla_Danger

SassyIrishLass said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's probably because this bullshit rumor has been going around for years, and has been repeatedly disproven.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'ere always big on blather and short on facts, Doc. I stopped taking you serious long ago. Typical left loon.
Click to expand...




Are you wearing your tin foil hat?  Good grief.


----------



## Vigilante

EverCurious said:


> I can make a ton of pictures that agree with my opinion as well.  Doesn't mean anything, except to idiots who are easily swayed and controlled.


Speaking for yourself again...I see!

















BUT THIS ONE I REALLY LIKE!!!!!!


----------



## Skylar

BluesLegend said:


> God damn even I underestimated the evil of the left.



You realize that the accusation is complete horseshit, right? 

Wait....you don't really care if its true, do you? You're not going to question the claim or fact check a thing, are you? You're just gonna nod.


----------



## EverCurious

Actually I'm pretty sure I speak for most people who are pro-choice, just like you speak for people who are anti-abortion.  Your opinion has more weight than mine because?


----------



## Vigilante

You're absolutely right, I AM RIGHT!... Tired of pictures, how about a little video?...


----------



## BluesLegend

Skylar said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> God damn even I underestimated the evil of the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that the accusation is complete horseshit, right?
> 
> Wait....you don't really care if its true, do you? You're not going to question the claim or fact check a thing, are you? You're just gonna nod.
Click to expand...


Call me when the lying left start fact checking, I'll be over here not holding my breath for that to happen.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Cecilie1200 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us again Republicans how there is no war on women!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ehrmagerd, you found an accusation article from AddictingInfo!  We must get right on . . . not giving a fat rat's furry asscrack.
> 
> Piss off with your partisan bullshit websites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try refuting the information instead of attacking the source. But I understand why you have to do that. It's all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dipshit, it's not "information".  That's the problem.  Someone should have told you that just because something's on the Internet, that doesn't make it true, doesn't make it serious, and doesn't obligate me to treat it like real news and refute it.  You might as well have cited _The Onion_ and insisted I "refute" it.
> 
> So take your demands for respect and stuff them where the sun don't shine.  You want respect, earn it by citing actual sources, not any bullshit you find lying around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, my...... you do sound as though you are becoming unhinged! So you saying that it's not true that some women are having trouble accessing  cancer screening  in states that have defunded PP? I provided a source that says that they are having problems. If you don't like it, not my problem. Lets see your source that says it is NOT true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a liberal could view being dismissed as a fucking moron as a win.  I guess y'all would have to, since a) you never accomplish anything else, and b) it happens so often.
> 
> What I'm actually saying, Progressive Pathetic, is that unlike you, I require a REAL source of news before I even pay attention, let alone get my panties in a ruffle.  There is no point in time at which I am going to use the reliability of Addicting-fucking-Info as a debate parameter.  I would sooner debate a "fact" reported by the National Inquirer.
> 
> "I provided a source that said it."  Big whoop-de-fucking-hairy-do.  I could provide a source that says eating green beans makes you shit Martians, but that doesn't make it true or worthy of debate.
> 
> If you don't like being laughed at, that's not MY problem.  If you want other people to do your homework for you, that's ALSO not my problem.  It is not my job to try to prove a negative, or to waste my time researching AddictingInfo like they're worthy of notice.  Produce a real news source, or we'll just assume that you're full of shit and move on to a real grown-up.
> 
> Either way, this argument about how to argue is over.  Real source, or surrender.  Your next post will be one or the other.  Up to you.
Click to expand...


Why is it necessary for you to be so damned nasty. You seem to be in a blind rage to the point where you can't see or hear anything that contradicts what you want to believe. Every time  that something is presented that conflicts with your biased views, you become even more unnerved. You didn't like my last source, try this on for size:




> Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Four experts in the field of human tissue procurement told us the price range discussed in the video — $30 to $100 per patient — represents a reasonable fee. “There’s no way there’s a profit at that price,” said Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository.”





> At one point in the unedited video (which was also released by the group), Nucatola says: “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.”
> 
> Nucatola also says, “No one’s going to see this as a money making thing.” And at another point, she says, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.”





> We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit. Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price.” She continued in an email:
> 
> *Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.



There is much more but you get the idea.


----------



## Dot Com

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this





theDoctorisIn said:


> It's probably because this bullshit rumor has been going around for years, and has been repeatedly disproven.





theDoctorisIn said:


> snopes.com Famous Food Companies Caught Using Aborted Babies for Flavor Additives



yep I remember this rw hit 'n run piece being debunked last year. n00bs Steve_McGarrett SassyIrishLass 






Toro Ravi


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).
> 
> "“*If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It’s all just a matter of line items.*”
> 
> " “*I think everyone realizes, especially because my department contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States. Larger than any the other affiliates’ combined.*” In a Texas Senate hearing on July 29, former Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast clinic director Abby Johnson estimated that the affiliate had previously made up to $120,000 per month off of aborted fetal tissue."
> 
> Ginde responds to the buyer’s suggestion of paying per body part harvested, rather than a standard flat fee for the entire case: “*I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.*”
> The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).
> Ginde also suggests ways for Planned Parenthood to cover-up its criminal and public relations liability for the sale of aborted body parts. “*Putting it under ‘research’ gives us a little bit of an overhang over the whole thing*,” Ginde remarks. “I*f you have someone in a really anti state who’s going to be doing this for you, they’re probably going to get caught.*”
> 
> Blog The Center for Medical Progress
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss post 1995 above?
Click to expand...

 I don't care enough to go look.


----------



## koshergrl

EverCurious said:


> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?


Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.

Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....

Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.


----------



## idb

Would the anti-PP/abortion crowd pledge to refuse any treatment that has been developed using fetal tissue?


----------



## Vigilante

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ehrmagerd, you found an accusation article from AddictingInfo!  We must get right on . . . not giving a fat rat's furry asscrack.
> 
> Piss off with your partisan bullshit websites.
> 
> 
> 
> Try refuting the information instead of attacking the source. But I understand why you have to do that. It's all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dipshit, it's not "information".  That's the problem.  Someone should have told you that just because something's on the Internet, that doesn't make it true, doesn't make it serious, and doesn't obligate me to treat it like real news and refute it.  You might as well have cited _The Onion_ and insisted I "refute" it.
> 
> So take your demands for respect and stuff them where the sun don't shine.  You want respect, earn it by citing actual sources, not any bullshit you find lying around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, my...... you do sound as though you are becoming unhinged! So you saying that it's not true that some women are having trouble accessing  cancer screening  in states that have defunded PP? I provided a source that says that they are having problems. If you don't like it, not my problem. Lets see your source that says it is NOT true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a liberal could view being dismissed as a fucking moron as a win.  I guess y'all would have to, since a) you never accomplish anything else, and b) it happens so often.
> 
> What I'm actually saying, Progressive Pathetic, is that unlike you, I require a REAL source of news before I even pay attention, let alone get my panties in a ruffle.  There is no point in time at which I am going to use the reliability of Addicting-fucking-Info as a debate parameter.  I would sooner debate a "fact" reported by the National Inquirer.
> 
> "I provided a source that said it."  Big whoop-de-fucking-hairy-do.  I could provide a source that says eating green beans makes you shit Martians, but that doesn't make it true or worthy of debate.
> 
> If you don't like being laughed at, that's not MY problem.  If you want other people to do your homework for you, that's ALSO not my problem.  It is not my job to try to prove a negative, or to waste my time researching AddictingInfo like they're worthy of notice.  Produce a real news source, or we'll just assume that you're full of shit and move on to a real grown-up.
> 
> Either way, this argument about how to argue is over.  Real source, or surrender.  Your next post will be one or the other.  Up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is it necessary for you to be so damned nasty. You seem to be in a blind rage to the point where you can't see or hear anything that contradicts what you want to believe. Every time  that something is presented that conflicts with your biased views, you become even more unnerved. You didn't like my last source, try this on for size:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video
> 
> Four experts in the field of human tissue procurement told us the price range discussed in the video — $30 to $100 per patient — represents a reasonable fee. “There’s no way there’s a profit at that price,” said Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At one point in the unedited video (which was also released by the group), Nucatola says: “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.”
> 
> Nucatola also says, “No one’s going to see this as a money making thing.” And at another point, she says, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit. Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price.” She continued in an email:
> 
> *Sawyer, July 20:* In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is much more but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Amazing what paying off some Dr. Mengele's can buy you these days.... I believe I saw something else where SCIENTISTS were BOUGHT OFF to say COKE would not make you fat!.... You folks really are this stupid, when your OWN, by mistake, tell us what really is happening with hidden cameras! But you people also believe Hillary didn't lie, and that B.J. never got a blow job under the White House desk!


----------



## Vigilante

idb said:


> Would the anti-PP/abortion crowd pledge to refuse any treatment that has been developed using fetal tissue?



You mean FLAVOR ENHANCERS????

*Corporations including Coca-Cola pull sponsorship of Planned Parenthood; Pepsi drops use of aborted fetal cells *
Natural News · 8 days ago
Coca-Cola, Xerox and Ford have all told Planned Parenthood to remove their names from its website, and other corporations like *Pepsi* that …


----------



## koshergrl

idb said:


> Would the anti-PP/abortion crowd pledge to refuse any treatment that has been developed using fetal tissue?


 You loons always want to heap all this special stuff on us.."If you believe this, then you MUST do this..." "If you believe this, then you must NOT do this..."

No, we will continue to use vaccinations. But we will continue to object to harvesting dead babies to produce it.


----------



## idb

Vigilante said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the anti-PP/abortion crowd pledge to refuse any treatment that has been developed using fetal tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean FLAVOR ENHANCERS????
Click to expand...

You believe that flavour enhancers are medical treatments?!
Well, that explains a lot.


----------



## koshergrl

"If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"


----------



## Vigilante

idb said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the anti-PP/abortion crowd pledge to refuse any treatment that has been developed using fetal tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean FLAVOR ENHANCERS????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe that flavour enhancers are medical treatments?!
> Well, that explains a lot.
Click to expand...


Well then genius, growing body parts on mice? Anyone ever get a mouse nose?


----------



## Carla_Danger

BluesLegend said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> God damn even I underestimated the evil of the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that the accusation is complete horseshit, right?
> 
> Wait....you don't really care if its true, do you? You're not going to question the claim or fact check a thing, are you? You're just gonna nod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me when the lying left start fact checking, I'll be over here not holding my breath for that to happen.
Click to expand...




Its already been fact checked, you idiot.


----------



## Skylar

BluesLegend said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> God damn even I underestimated the evil of the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that the accusation is complete horseshit, right?
> 
> Wait....you don't really care if its true, do you? You're not going to question the claim or fact check a thing, are you? You're just gonna nod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me when the lying left start fact checking, I'll be over here not holding my breath for that to happen.
Click to expand...


Is that when you're gonna start fact checking? Because you swallowed that bullshit accusation pretty quickly. And without any evidence to back the claim up.

You genuinely don't care if the accusation is true, do you?


----------



## BluesLegend

Carla_Danger said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> God damn even I underestimated the evil of the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that the accusation is complete horseshit, right?
> 
> Wait....you don't really care if its true, do you? You're not going to question the claim or fact check a thing, are you? You're just gonna nod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me when the lying left start fact checking, I'll be over here not holding my breath for that to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its already been fact checked, you idiot.
Click to expand...


You really are a dunce.


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the anti-PP/abortion crowd pledge to refuse any treatment that has been developed using fetal tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> You loons always want to heap all this special stuff on us.."If you believe this, then you MUST do this..." "If you believe this, then you must NOT do this..."
> 
> No, we will continue to use vaccinations. But we will continue to object to harvesting dead babies to produce it.
Click to expand...

Your commitment to your morality is admirable.


----------



## idb

Vigilante said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the anti-PP/abortion crowd pledge to refuse any treatment that has been developed using fetal tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean FLAVOR ENHANCERS????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You believe that flavour enhancers are medical treatments?!
> Well, that explains a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then genius, growing body parts on mice? Anyone ever get a mouse nose?
Click to expand...

Are we still talking about flavour enhancers here?
It's difficult to tell since you seem to use them interchangeably with medical research.


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"


So, you've changed your position in one post?


----------



## BluesLegend

Skylar said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> God damn even I underestimated the evil of the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that the accusation is complete horseshit, right?
> 
> Wait....you don't really care if its true, do you? You're not going to question the claim or fact check a thing, are you? You're just gonna nod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me when the lying left start fact checking, I'll be over here not holding my breath for that to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that when you're gonna start fact checking? Because you swallowed that bullshit accusation pretty quickly. And without any evidence to back the claim up.
> 
> You genuinely don't care if the accusation is true, do you?
Click to expand...


I'm perfectly fine making up lies about the left, blatant lies. After all the left has been lying about the right for decades, its time they got a dose of their own medicine.


----------



## Vigilante

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
Click to expand...

I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!


----------



## Skylar

BluesLegend said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> God damn even I underestimated the evil of the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that the accusation is complete horseshit, right?
> 
> Wait....you don't really care if its true, do you? You're not going to question the claim or fact check a thing, are you? You're just gonna nod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me when the lying left start fact checking, I'll be over here not holding my breath for that to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that when you're gonna start fact checking? Because you swallowed that bullshit accusation pretty quickly. And without any evidence to back the claim up.
> 
> You genuinely don't care if the accusation is true, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly fine making up lies about the left, blatant lies. After all the left has been lying about the right for decades, its time they got a dose of their own medicine.
Click to expand...


Then there we go. Not only do you not care if the claim is true, you'll gladly lie.

That tells us all we need to know about you.


----------



## aris2chat

Vigilante said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
Click to expand...


wow are they in the wrong business

>>Family cord blood banks charge a first-year processing fee that ranges from about $1,400 to $2,300, plus annual storage costs of about $115 to $150. The banks offer payment plans, ranging from no-interest installments paid over a few months to longer-term financing with interest.<<


----------



## koshergrl

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the anti-PP/abortion crowd pledge to refuse any treatment that has been developed using fetal tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> You loons always want to heap all this special stuff on us.."If you believe this, then you MUST do this..." "If you believe this, then you must NOT do this..."
> 
> No, we will continue to use vaccinations. But we will continue to object to harvesting dead babies to produce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your commitment to your morality is admirable.
Click to expand...

 My morality requires I protect life. I will not deny life vaccinations that are already created. And I will not take life to create them. It's too subtle for baby killers to understand. In fact, the whole "life is sacred" thing befuddles them.


----------



## Vigilante

aris2chat said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow are they in the wrong business
> 
> >>Family cord blood banks charge a first-year processing fee that ranges from about $1,400 to $2,300, plus annual storage costs of about $115 to $150. The banks offer payment plans, ranging from no-interest installments paid over a few months to longer-term financing with interest.<<
Click to expand...

Ah...... But do they get HALF A BILLION DOLLARS a year from Federal grants?????


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow are they in the wrong business
> 
> >>Family cord blood banks charge a first-year processing fee that ranges from about $1,400 to $2,300, plus annual storage costs of about $115 to $150. The banks offer payment plans, ranging from no-interest installments paid over a few months to longer-term financing with interest.<<
Click to expand...

 Do you not understand the difference between harvesting baby organs, and using umbilical cord blood? One of these miracles requires a living child. The other a dead one. Think think think.


----------



## idb

Vigilante said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
Click to expand...

It's not hard to find medical treatments...sorry, I forgot who I'm talking to, I meant to address you in words you understand...I mean "flavour enhancers" that have been researched and developed using fetal tissue.


> Vaccines have been one of the chief public benefits of fetal tissue research. Vaccines for hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies, for example, were developed using cell lines grown from tissue from two elective abortions, one in England and one in Sweden, that were performed in the 1960s.
> 
> German measles, also known as rubella, “caused 5,000 spontaneous abortions a year prior to the vaccine,” said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious-disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “We wouldn’t have saved all those lives had it not been for those cells.”
> 
> Fetal tissue was “absolutely critical” to the development of a potential Ebola vaccine that has shown promise, said Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, an associate director at NIH, which last year handed out $76 million for work involving fetal tissue, or 0.2 percent of the agency’s research budget.


Scientists say fetal tissue remains essential for vaccines and developing treatments


----------



## g5000

BluesLegend said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> God damn even I underestimated the evil of the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that the accusation is complete horseshit, right?
> 
> Wait....you don't really care if its true, do you? You're not going to question the claim or fact check a thing, are you? You're just gonna nod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me when the lying left start fact checking, I'll be over here not holding my breath for that to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its already been fact checked, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a dunce.
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

idb said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not hard to find medical treatments...sorry, I forgot who I'm talking to, I meant to address you in words you understand...I mean "flavour enhancers" that have been researched and developed using fetal tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines have been one of the chief public benefits of fetal tissue research. Vaccines for hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies, for example, were developed using cell lines grown from tissue from two elective abortions, one in England and one in Sweden, that were performed in the 1960s.
> 
> German measles, also known as rubella, “caused 5,000 spontaneous abortions a year prior to the vaccine,” said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious-disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “We wouldn’t have saved all those lives had it not been for those cells.”
> 
> Fetal tissue was “absolutely critical” to the development of a potential Ebola vaccine that has shown promise, said Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, an associate director at NIH, which last year handed out $76 million for work involving fetal tissue, or 0.2 percent of the agency’s research budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists say fetal tissue remains essential for vaccines and developing treatments
Click to expand...

 Ah...a non-biased PBS article about how we need to kill babies..to save babies.

You realize that is EXACTLY the same argument the Nazis used to justify killing innocents, right?


----------



## FA_Q2

S.J. said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm noticing no leftists are rushing in to the defense of this
> 
> 
> 
> They'll find a way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of them did, failed miserably but he usually fails miserably
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When Snopes is the only rebuttal you have, you know you've got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> 
> There is simply no way to spin this as bias.  Read the snopes claim - it is certainly more credible than the original cited article to say the least and it resoundingly refutes the blanket assertions made by the OP.
> 
> It is apparent that those refusing to acknowledge the points brought up WANT to be disillusioned into believing this tripe.  I cannot imagine why though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those companies would be suing if it were not true.  You just don't like the fact that they were exposed.  You're the one trying to spin it.
Click to expand...

No, the facts do not state otherwise and the claim that they would be suing is asinine.  

If it were the NY times, then they might as there are real pockets there and actual influence.  The OP's source though, no real money and no real readership.  They also are essentially an op ed - there is almost nothing that can be sued.  Do you also believe that the national enquirer stories about bat boy are true because of no lawsuits?  Of course not and they actually do get a lot of readers.  If they were to sue the false story would get a lot more attention as well and yet the same people that believe it now would shout about liberal judges blocking the truth.  We know - it has been done here a dozen times before.

The first amendment allows VERY wide license, particularly with an internet that is nigh impossible to regulate.  

It boils down to believing whatever yo read on the net simply because you agree with it.  You should read things on the net with a MUCH more skeptical mind - there is FAR more bullshit than there is truth on the net.


----------



## idb

Vigilante said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
Click to expand...

What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
Do you have any figures?
$30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.


----------



## FA_Q2

g5000 said:


> Shit, it has been more than two  years since I heard this bullshit.  And now here it is again.  I'm just going to post exactly what I posted back in 2013.
> 
> Here is how it works.
> 
> Way back in 1972, a fetus was aborted in the Netherlands. Inside that fetus were some itty bitty kidney cells. Those itty bitty kidneys cells have been cultured and descendant cells have been grown from them.
> 
> Whatever cells Senomyx used are who knows how many generations removed from the original cells. Senomyx is the actual company which created the flavor enhancers used by Pepsi.
> 
> Senomyx is not the only company which uses this line of cells. Many vaccines, drugs, and tasty foods have been developed through the use of these cells.
> 
> Anyway, Senomyx then forced the cells to take up tiny pieces of DNA from an adenovirus.
> 
> The result is new cells which are not human in any way, but which have a weird and serendipitous characteristic. They have receptors shaped identically to certain taste receptors you have in your mouth.
> 
> A receptor is like a keyhole. And the flavor molecule is like a key. The trick is to create a flavor molecule that fits in the receptor.
> 
> If the flavor enhancer fits in the artificially created receptor, then it will fit into the taste receptors in your mouth.
> 
> (cue _Weird Science_ by Oingo Boingo)
> 
> 
> So if you drink Pepsi with those flavor enhancers, you are not consuming the fetal cells. Nor are you consuming their descendants. Nor are you consuming bits of adenovirus. You are consuming flavor enhancers which fit perfectly in your mouth.


Thank you G.

Very succinct and easy to understand.


----------



## Vigilante

idb said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not hard to find medical treatments...sorry, I forgot who I'm talking to, I meant to address you in words you understand...I mean "flavour enhancers" that have been researched and developed using fetal tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines have been one of the chief public benefits of fetal tissue research. Vaccines for hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies, for example, were developed using cell lines grown from tissue from two elective abortions, one in England and one in Sweden, that were performed in the 1960s.
> 
> German measles, also known as rubella, “caused 5,000 spontaneous abortions a year prior to the vaccine,” said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious-disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “We wouldn’t have saved all those lives had it not been for those cells.”
> 
> Fetal tissue was “absolutely critical” to the development of a potential Ebola vaccine that has shown promise, said Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, an associate director at NIH, which last year handed out $76 million for work involving fetal tissue, or 0.2 percent of the agency’s research budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists say fetal tissue remains essential for vaccines and developing treatments
Click to expand...


Let's see, suppose you are right and 5000 lives were saved at the cost of 330,000 lives! Sounds like a DEAL to me! A POTENTIAL EBOLA vaccine.... that has gotten $76 MILLION in government grants....which is only .2% of the research budget.... Do you realize how much of a GOV'T GRANT that research budget is? And just how much of that grant was SENT BACK TO THE DNC for a DONATION???? Do you know how to spell corruption? Copy it down!


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not hard to find medical treatments...sorry, I forgot who I'm talking to, I meant to address you in words you understand...I mean "flavour enhancers" that have been researched and developed using fetal tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines have been one of the chief public benefits of fetal tissue research. Vaccines for hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies, for example, were developed using cell lines grown from tissue from two elective abortions, one in England and one in Sweden, that were performed in the 1960s.
> 
> German measles, also known as rubella, “caused 5,000 spontaneous abortions a year prior to the vaccine,” said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious-disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “We wouldn’t have saved all those lives had it not been for those cells.”
> 
> Fetal tissue was “absolutely critical” to the development of a potential Ebola vaccine that has shown promise, said Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, an associate director at NIH, which last year handed out $76 million for work involving fetal tissue, or 0.2 percent of the agency’s research budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists say fetal tissue remains essential for vaccines and developing treatments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah...a non-biased PBS article about how we need to kill babies..to save babies.
> 
> You realize that is EXACTLY the same argument the Nazis used to justify killing innocents, right?
Click to expand...

No. I didn't know that.
I'd love some quotes...it might change my mind.


----------



## Vigilante

idb said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
> Do you have any figures?
> $30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
> I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.
Click to expand...


Well genius, using just ONE abortion at $30 a head (undoubtedly it is much more for one aborted baby can supply brain, heart, liver, kidney's, and other parts, BUT $30 times 330,000 dead is just about $10 Million, now tell me that $10 million, on the very lowest side, isn't worth doing it for PP for the year!


----------



## idb

Vigilante said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not hard to find medical treatments...sorry, I forgot who I'm talking to, I meant to address you in words you understand...I mean "flavour enhancers" that have been researched and developed using fetal tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines have been one of the chief public benefits of fetal tissue research. Vaccines for hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies, for example, were developed using cell lines grown from tissue from two elective abortions, one in England and one in Sweden, that were performed in the 1960s.
> 
> German measles, also known as rubella, “caused 5,000 spontaneous abortions a year prior to the vaccine,” said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious-disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “We wouldn’t have saved all those lives had it not been for those cells.”
> 
> Fetal tissue was “absolutely critical” to the development of a potential Ebola vaccine that has shown promise, said Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, an associate director at NIH, which last year handed out $76 million for work involving fetal tissue, or 0.2 percent of the agency’s research budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists say fetal tissue remains essential for vaccines and developing treatments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, suppose you are right and 5000 lives were saved at the cost of 330,000 lives! Sounds like a DEAL to me! A POTENTIAL EBOLA vaccine.... that has gotten $76 MILLION in government grants....which is only .2% of the research budget.... Do you realize how much of a GOV'T GRANT that research budget is? And just how much of that grant was SENT BACK TO THE DNC for a DONATION???? Do you know how to spell corruption? Copy it down!
Click to expand...

You asked me for some examples and I gave you some.

If those 330,000 tiny little lives were true American patriots then I'm sure they were glad to die for the greater good.
If they weren't true patriots then they can damn well go back to where they came from...am I right?


----------



## EverCurious

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
Click to expand...


Yea your right, I'm just a fucking baby killer satan worshipper ~rolls eyes~

Ya'll chose to ignore the facts I did present regarding different medical camps idea of "when life began" because they didn't fit ya'lls agenda and have now segwayed into becoming unreasonable.  Liberal tactics, why you think they'd work here I have no idea but w/e.

We'll see if I give a shit enough to go find the medical communities thoughts for you to ignore, yet again, later.  At the moment I don't feel like it, sorry.


----------



## Vigilante

idb said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not hard to find medical treatments...sorry, I forgot who I'm talking to, I meant to address you in words you understand...I mean "flavour enhancers" that have been researched and developed using fetal tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines have been one of the chief public benefits of fetal tissue research. Vaccines for hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies, for example, were developed using cell lines grown from tissue from two elective abortions, one in England and one in Sweden, that were performed in the 1960s.
> 
> German measles, also known as rubella, “caused 5,000 spontaneous abortions a year prior to the vaccine,” said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious-disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “We wouldn’t have saved all those lives had it not been for those cells.”
> 
> Fetal tissue was “absolutely critical” to the development of a potential Ebola vaccine that has shown promise, said Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, an associate director at NIH, which last year handed out $76 million for work involving fetal tissue, or 0.2 percent of the agency’s research budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists say fetal tissue remains essential for vaccines and developing treatments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, suppose you are right and 5000 lives were saved at the cost of 330,000 lives! Sounds like a DEAL to me! A POTENTIAL EBOLA vaccine.... that has gotten $76 MILLION in government grants....which is only .2% of the research budget.... Do you realize how much of a GOV'T GRANT that research budget is? And just how much of that grant was SENT BACK TO THE DNC for a DONATION???? Do you know how to spell corruption? Copy it down!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked me for some examples and I gave you some.
> 
> If those 330,000 tiny little lives were true American patriots then I'm sure they were glad to die for the greater good.
> If they weren't true patriots then they can damn well go back to where they came from...am I right?
Click to expand...

What are you babbling about ,you little turd, these are babies, not men! How the fuck Patriots came into this is beyond me...except, for a diversion from baby killing!


----------



## koshergrl

idb said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
> Do you have any figures?
> $30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
> I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.
Click to expand...

 Well, there's the change you get from the woman...and the change you get from the government...and on top of that, up to a couple hundred for the parts...

That's a substantial chunk. So apparently you, like most baby killers, don't understand how to gauge a profit, or why there is a conflict of interest in getting more money for older dead babies. Don't worry, your heroes at planned parenthood have got it all figured out.


----------



## koshergrl

EverCurious said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea your right, I'm just a fucking baby killer satan worshipper ~rolls eyes~
> 
> Ya'll chose to ignore the facts I did present regarding different medical camps idea of "when life began" because they didn't fit ya'lls agenda and have now segwayed into becoming unreasonable.  Liberal tactics, why you think they'd work here I have no idea but w/e.
> 
> We'll see if I give a shit enough to go find the medical communities thoughts for you to ignore, yet again, later.  At the moment I don't feel like it, sorry.
Click to expand...

 
Actually, we're not talking about when life begins. We're talking about Planned Parenthood fabricating medical records, engaging in gruesome and illegal practices, and harvesting dead babies for profit...and whether or not they should be subsidized by the feds when they are breaking the law in the most egregious manner.

Separate. Issues.


----------



## idb

Vigilante said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
> Do you have any figures?
> $30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
> I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well genius, using just ONE abortion at $30 a head (undoubtedly it is much more for one aborted baby can supply brain, heart, liver, kidney's, and other parts, BUT $30 times 330,000 dead is just about $10 Million, now tell me that $10 million, on the very lowest side, isn't worth doing it for PP for the year!
Click to expand...

Wow!
Do you mean that there'd be no discount for multiple parts?
You're right...that's outrageous!!
No wonder you're so upset...it's a rip-off!


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
> Do you have any figures?
> $30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
> I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, there's the change you get from the woman...and the change you get from the government...and on top of that, up to a couple hundred for the parts...
> 
> That's a substantial chunk. So apparently you, like most baby killers, don't understand how to gauge a profit, or why there is a conflict of interest in getting more money for older dead babies. Don't worry, your heroes at planned parenthood have got it all figured out.
Click to expand...

You know, it would have been much shorter if you'd just typed "No, I have no evidence".


----------



## koshergrl

idb said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
> Do you have any figures?
> $30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
> I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well genius, using just ONE abortion at $30 a head (undoubtedly it is much more for one aborted baby can supply brain, heart, liver, kidney's, and other parts, BUT $30 times 330,000 dead is just about $10 Million, now tell me that $10 million, on the very lowest side, isn't worth doing it for PP for the year!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!
> Do you mean that there'd be no discount for multiple parts?
> You're right...that's outrageous!!
> No wonder you're so upset...it's a rip-off!
Click to expand...

 
Discount for who?

At any rate, they discussed this aspect of it when they were talking about price listing, and how not to "low ball" and suchlike.


----------



## Vigilante

idb said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
> Do you have any figures?
> $30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
> I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well genius, using just ONE abortion at $30 a head (undoubtedly it is much more for one aborted baby can supply brain, heart, liver, kidney's, and other parts, BUT $30 times 330,000 dead is just about $10 Million, now tell me that $10 million, on the very lowest side, isn't worth doing it for PP for the year!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow!
> Do you mean that there'd be no discount for multiple parts?
> You're right...that's outrageous!!
> No wonder you're so upset...it's a rip-off!
Click to expand...


Well you can make fun of it, just as I can post my little meme's!


----------



## koshergrl

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
> Do you have any figures?
> $30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
> I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, there's the change you get from the woman...and the change you get from the government...and on top of that, up to a couple hundred for the parts...
> 
> That's a substantial chunk. So apparently you, like most baby killers, don't understand how to gauge a profit, or why there is a conflict of interest in getting more money for older dead babies. Don't worry, your heroes at planned parenthood have got it all figured out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, it would have been much shorter if you'd just typed "No, I have no evidence".
Click to expand...

 Except that's not what I meant, and that's certainly not true.

"Three Planned Parenthood Federation of America clinics in Florida were ordered to stop performing second-trimester abortions after an investigation found they didn’t have the proper licenses, the state Agency for Health Care Administration said Wednesday.
"*The investigation also found one clinic that wasn't keeping proper logs relating to fetal remains, according to the agency*.

Florida Investigation of Planned Parenthood Clinics Finds Deficiencies - WSJ


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
Click to expand...

Where do you get your "stats" from? In a recent Rasmussen poll, respondents favor Planned Parenthood by a margin of 53% to 37%.


----------



## EverCurious

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea your right, I'm just a fucking baby killer satan worshipper ~rolls eyes~
> 
> Ya'll chose to ignore the facts I did present regarding different medical camps idea of "when life began" because they didn't fit ya'lls agenda and have now segwayed into becoming unreasonable.  Liberal tactics, why you think they'd work here I have no idea but w/e.
> 
> We'll see if I give a shit enough to go find the medical communities thoughts for you to ignore, yet again, later.  At the moment I don't feel like it, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we're not talking about when life begins. We're talking about Planned Parenthood fabricating medical records, engaging in gruesome and illegal practices, and harvesting dead babies for profit...and whether or not they should be subsidized by the feds when they are breaking the law in the most egregious manner.
> 
> Separate. Issues.
Click to expand...


Is that so, well then explain why the court has barred these videos from being displayed because they found them to be misleading?  Are you arguing that the courts are in on this conspiracy theory to help PP make money off aborted fetal tissue?


----------



## koshergrl

"Following an unannounced visit by agency investigators on July 31, a Planned Parenthood facility in St. Petersburg was found to be providing services beyond the scope of its license, according to the state findings posted Wednesday online. A further review found that 25 out of 742 abortions performed between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2015 were done in the second trimester of pregnancy."
Florida Investigation of Planned Parenthood Clinics Finds Deficiencies - WSJ


----------



## koshergrl

EverCurious said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea your right, I'm just a fucking baby killer satan worshipper ~rolls eyes~
> 
> Ya'll chose to ignore the facts I did present regarding different medical camps idea of "when life began" because they didn't fit ya'lls agenda and have now segwayed into becoming unreasonable.  Liberal tactics, why you think they'd work here I have no idea but w/e.
> 
> We'll see if I give a shit enough to go find the medical communities thoughts for you to ignore, yet again, later.  At the moment I don't feel like it, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we're not talking about when life begins. We're talking about Planned Parenthood fabricating medical records, engaging in gruesome and illegal practices, and harvesting dead babies for profit...and whether or not they should be subsidized by the feds when they are breaking the law in the most egregious manner.
> 
> Separate. Issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that so, well then explain why the court has barred these videos from being displayed because they found them to be misleading?  Are you arguing that the courts are in on this conspiracy theory to help PP make money off aborted fetal tissue?
Click to expand...

 
No, I'm saying you are either baldfaced lying, or you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The court made no such "ruling".


----------



## koshergrl

"In Naples, Fla., the state investigators found a third Planned Parenthood clinic performing second-trimester abortions without a proper license. The state said a review found that 19 were done between July 2014 and June 2015.
"A clinic in Pembroke Pines, Fla., failed to follow its own policy regarding proper labeling and dating of the disposal of fetal remains, the agency report said. That affected the disposal of remains from 25 abortions. "

Pretty much every single PP clinic flagrantly disregards the few laws that actually do exist.

Florida Investigation of Planned Parenthood Clinics Finds Deficiencies - WSJ


----------



## Faun

Vigilante said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
> Do you have any figures?
> $30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
> I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well genius, using just ONE abortion at $30 a head (undoubtedly it is much more for one aborted baby can supply brain, heart, liver, kidney's, and other parts, BUT $30 times 330,000 dead is just about $10 Million, now tell me that $10 million, on the very lowest side, isn't worth doing it for PP for the year!
Click to expand...

Where do you get 330,000 from?


----------



## idb

Vigilante said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> 
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not hard to find medical treatments...sorry, I forgot who I'm talking to, I meant to address you in words you understand...I mean "flavour enhancers" that have been researched and developed using fetal tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines have been one of the chief public benefits of fetal tissue research. Vaccines for hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies, for example, were developed using cell lines grown from tissue from two elective abortions, one in England and one in Sweden, that were performed in the 1960s.
> 
> German measles, also known as rubella, “caused 5,000 spontaneous abortions a year prior to the vaccine,” said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious-disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “We wouldn’t have saved all those lives had it not been for those cells.”
> 
> Fetal tissue was “absolutely critical” to the development of a potential Ebola vaccine that has shown promise, said Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, an associate director at NIH, which last year handed out $76 million for work involving fetal tissue, or 0.2 percent of the agency’s research budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists say fetal tissue remains essential for vaccines and developing treatments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, suppose you are right and 5000 lives were saved at the cost of 330,000 lives! Sounds like a DEAL to me! A POTENTIAL EBOLA vaccine.... that has gotten $76 MILLION in government grants....which is only .2% of the research budget.... Do you realize how much of a GOV'T GRANT that research budget is? And just how much of that grant was SENT BACK TO THE DNC for a DONATION???? Do you know how to spell corruption? Copy it down!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You asked me for some examples and I gave you some.
> 
> If those 330,000 tiny little lives were true American patriots then I'm sure they were glad to die for the greater good.
> If they weren't true patriots then they can damn well go back to where they came from...am I right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you babbling about ,you little turd, these are babies, not men! How the fuck Patriots came into this is beyond me...except, for a diversion from baby killing!
Click to expand...

I was carrying on from your diversion.
You asked me what 'flavour enhancers' (treatments) had been derived from fetal tissue research, I told you a few and then you launched into a discussion on business practices.


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the anti-PP/abortion crowd pledge to refuse any treatment that has been developed using fetal tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> You loons always want to heap all this special stuff on us.."If you believe this, then you MUST do this..." "If you believe this, then you must NOT do this..."
> 
> No, we will continue to use vaccinations. But we will continue to object to harvesting dead babies to produce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your commitment to your morality is admirable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My morality requires I protect life. I will not deny life vaccinations that are already created. And I will not take life to create them. It's too subtle for baby killers to understand. In fact, the whole "life is sacred" thing befuddles them.
Click to expand...


Babies are not killed for vaccine material.  The use of the tissue/cells would have been medical waste unless the tissue is donated for research.

Rather that feed worms and bug, why shouldn't the tissue be used to save lives?

Do you have a problem when neutering animals that the balls are given to dogs of cooked and eaten?  Stuff ram balls are delicious.

We bury our bodies to feed bugs, we also donate our organs to save lives. Which is more thoughtful of saving human life?  Embalming is toxic to the environment.  Cremation just is ash and blows in the wind.
Why don't people leave their bodies our for the animals to feed on, sustain other life?

Why do people have such a phobia of tissue for research.  It is being donated.  No one is killed for the tissue any more than donating a body to science is killing a body for it's tissue.  

Bugs are more important????  But we spend billions and pollute our environment to kill bugs?  You want to feed them?  They already out number us and have out lived the dinosaurs.


----------



## aris2chat

Vigilante said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow are they in the wrong business
> 
> >>Family cord blood banks charge a first-year processing fee that ranges from about $1,400 to $2,300, plus annual storage costs of about $115 to $150. The banks offer payment plans, ranging from no-interest installments paid over a few months to longer-term financing with interest.<<
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah...... But do they get HALF A BILLION DOLLARS a year from Federal grants?????
Click to expand...


grants are not for tissue, but for serving the medical needs of women


----------



## Vigilante

Faun said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
> Do you have any figures?
> $30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
> I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well genius, using just ONE abortion at $30 a head (undoubtedly it is much more for one aborted baby can supply brain, heart, liver, kidney's, and other parts, BUT $30 times 330,000 dead is just about $10 Million, now tell me that $10 million, on the very lowest side, isn't worth doing it for PP for the year!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get 330,000 from?
Click to expand...


You couldn't look it up...too hard, or it pisses you off to  find out I'm right, as usual!


*Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
*LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/29/*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*...
May 29, 2012 · *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the ... This would mean that *Planned Parenthood aborts* a *baby* about ... 391 *babies* are *aborted*. *Each year*, ...

*Sex-Selection Abortion: A War on Baby Girls | LifeNews.com *
*LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/31/sex-selection-*abortion*-a-war-on-*baby*-girls
May 31, 2012 · Let’s not forget that *Planned Parenthood aborts* approximately *330,000* children *each year*. ... upon millions of new “missing *baby* girls” *each year*.

*Planned Parenthood: Over 333,000 Babies Aborted in 2011 ... *
*Breitbart News Network*/big-government/2013/01/08/a-joyful-*planned*...
That's the figure proudly released by *Planned Parenthood* Federation of America in their ... *Planned Parenthood*: Over 333,000 *Babies Aborted* in ... A *year* after ...

*Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
2012 May Right To Life of Southwest Indiana*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*-every...
*Planned Parenthood* Does One ... *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the 1,200,000 ... *Each year*, *Planned Parenthood aborts* more than 320,000 innocent ...

*STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Stats and Analysis Overview *
STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Home
How many children has *Planned Parenthood* killed by *abortion*? How much money did *Planned Parenthood* make last *year*? ... preborn *babies*. *Planned Parenthood* kills ...


----------



## Vigilante

aris2chat said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow are they in the wrong business
> 
> >>Family cord blood banks charge a first-year processing fee that ranges from about $1,400 to $2,300, plus annual storage costs of about $115 to $150. The banks offer payment plans, ranging from no-interest installments paid over a few months to longer-term financing with interest.<<
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah...... But do they get HALF A BILLION DOLLARS a year from Federal grants?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> grants are not for tissue, but for serving the medical needs of women
Click to expand...


No, they are given so the DNC and selected politicians can get back campaign donations! ...a few FAKE republican's also!

*Planned Parenthood Contributions to Federal Candidates ...*
*OpenSecrets.org Money in Politics -- See Who s Giving Who s Getting*/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00314617&cycle=2008
... and *donations* to PACs, ... *Planned Parenthood*. Summary; ... Select a Cycle: House Total to *Democrats*: $256,176 Total to Republicans: $10,000; Recipient ...


----------



## Faun

Vigilante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> 
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
> Do you have any figures?
> $30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
> I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well genius, using just ONE abortion at $30 a head (undoubtedly it is much more for one aborted baby can supply brain, heart, liver, kidney's, and other parts, BUT $30 times 330,000 dead is just about $10 Million, now tell me that $10 million, on the very lowest side, isn't worth doing it for PP for the year!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get 330,000 from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't look it up...too hard, or it pisses you off to  find out I'm right, as usual!
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/29/*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*...
> May 29, 2012 · *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the ... This would mean that *Planned Parenthood aborts* a *baby* about ... 391 *babies* are *aborted*. *Each year*, ...
> 
> *Sex-Selection Abortion: A War on Baby Girls | LifeNews.com *
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/31/sex-selection-*abortion*-a-war-on-*baby*-girls
> May 31, 2012 · Let’s not forget that *Planned Parenthood aborts* approximately *330,000* children *each year*. ... upon millions of new “missing *baby* girls” *each year*.
> 
> *Planned Parenthood: Over 333,000 Babies Aborted in 2011 ... *
> *Breitbart News Network*/big-government/2013/01/08/a-joyful-*planned*...
> That's the figure proudly released by *Planned Parenthood* Federation of America in their ... *Planned Parenthood*: Over 333,000 *Babies Aborted* in ... A *year* after ...
> 
> *Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
> 2012 May Right To Life of Southwest Indiana*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*-every...
> *Planned Parenthood* Does One ... *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the 1,200,000 ... *Each year*, *Planned Parenthood aborts* more than 320,000 innocent ...
> 
> *STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Stats and Analysis Overview *
> STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Home
> How many children has *Planned Parenthood* killed by *abortion*? How much money did *Planned Parenthood* make last *year*? ... preborn *babies*. *Planned Parenthood* kills ...
Click to expand...

No, it amuses me that you're so retarded.


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> 
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
> Do you have any figures?
> $30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
> I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, there's the change you get from the woman...and the change you get from the government...and on top of that, up to a couple hundred for the parts...
> 
> That's a substantial chunk. So apparently you, like most baby killers, don't understand how to gauge a profit, or why there is a conflict of interest in getting more money for older dead babies. Don't worry, your heroes at planned parenthood have got it all figured out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, it would have been much shorter if you'd just typed "No, I have no evidence".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that's not what I meant, and that's certainly not true.
> 
> "Three Planned Parenthood Federation of America clinics in Florida were ordered to stop performing second-trimester abortions after an investigation found they didn’t have the proper licenses, the state Agency for Health Care Administration said Wednesday.
> "*The investigation also found one clinic that wasn't keeping proper logs relating to fetal remains, according to the agency*.
> 
> Florida Investigation of Planned Parenthood Clinics Finds Deficiencies - WSJ
Click to expand...

Before I open and read it...how much profit does it say that PP are making by tearing apart these tiny babies and mailing their bits around the country?


----------



## Vigilante

Faun said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> 
> 
> What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
> Do you have any figures?
> $30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
> I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well genius, using just ONE abortion at $30 a head (undoubtedly it is much more for one aborted baby can supply brain, heart, liver, kidney's, and other parts, BUT $30 times 330,000 dead is just about $10 Million, now tell me that $10 million, on the very lowest side, isn't worth doing it for PP for the year!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get 330,000 from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't look it up...too hard, or it pisses you off to  find out I'm right, as usual!
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/29/*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*...
> May 29, 2012 · *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the ... This would mean that *Planned Parenthood aborts* a *baby* about ... 391 *babies* are *aborted*. *Each year*, ...
> 
> *Sex-Selection Abortion: A War on Baby Girls | LifeNews.com *
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/31/sex-selection-*abortion*-a-war-on-*baby*-girls
> May 31, 2012 · Let’s not forget that *Planned Parenthood aborts* approximately *330,000* children *each year*. ... upon millions of new “missing *baby* girls” *each year*.
> 
> *Planned Parenthood: Over 333,000 Babies Aborted in 2011 ... *
> *Breitbart News Network*/big-government/2013/01/08/a-joyful-*planned*...
> That's the figure proudly released by *Planned Parenthood* Federation of America in their ... *Planned Parenthood*: Over 333,000 *Babies Aborted* in ... A *year* after ...
> 
> *Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
> 2012 May Right To Life of Southwest Indiana*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*-every...
> *Planned Parenthood* Does One ... *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the 1,200,000 ... *Each year*, *Planned Parenthood aborts* more than 320,000 innocent ...
> 
> *STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Stats and Analysis Overview *
> STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Home
> How many children has *Planned Parenthood* killed by *abortion*? How much money did *Planned Parenthood* make last *year*? ... preborn *babies*. *Planned Parenthood* kills ...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it amuses me that you're so retarded.
Click to expand...

Yes, your LOW 2 digit IQ always laughs when my 3 digit IQ bitch slaps you on the forum!


----------



## Dot Com

"breaking" lol. Steve_McGarrett trying to do a repeat drive by


----------



## aris2chat

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow are they in the wrong business
> 
> >>Family cord blood banks charge a first-year processing fee that ranges from about $1,400 to $2,300, plus annual storage costs of about $115 to $150. The banks offer payment plans, ranging from no-interest installments paid over a few months to longer-term financing with interest.<<
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not understand the difference between harvesting baby organs, and using umbilical cord blood? One of these miracles requires a living child. The other a dead one. Think think think.
Click to expand...


stem cells and fetal cells are almost identical, neutral cells that don't have an IQ yet for what they will become.

They are not "harvesting" organs.  Tissue that would otherwise be disposed of as worm food to incinerated can be donated by the women for medical research use.

What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells Stem Cell Information 
Myths and Misconceptions About Stem Cell Research California s Stem Cell Agency
http://www.ascb.org/newsfiles/fetaltissue.pdf


----------



## Vigilante

I enjoy posting these from the terminally ill politicians of the left on abortion...especially this one who will be the Democratic candidate for president!

*Unrepentant Baby Killers of the Reactionary Left *

World Net Daily ^ | 8/12/2015 | Daniel Greenfield
Senator Elizabeth Warren shrilly denounced efforts to defund Planned Parenthood for trafficking in baby parts. "Do you have any idea what year it is?" she demanded. "Did you fall down, hit your head, and think you woke up in the 1950's or the 1890's?” Warren ought to know. She used to be a Republican, then she hit her head and has been stuck in 1848 ever since. But to understand why some people might have a problem with her favorite racist mass murdering organization, let’s try a visit back to 1926 instead. That was the year that the founder of...


----------



## koshergrl

"...abortion practitioner Caroline Hoke was accused of over-billing Medicaid an estimated $430,380 for mostly undocumented services. Hoke was the state’s fourth highest billing Medicaid physician, asking the taxpayers to fork over $3.9 million to her from 2009-2011 as she served as the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of Illinois."

Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow are they in the wrong business
> 
> >>Family cord blood banks charge a first-year processing fee that ranges from about $1,400 to $2,300, plus annual storage costs of about $115 to $150. The banks offer payment plans, ranging from no-interest installments paid over a few months to longer-term financing with interest.<<
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you not understand the difference between harvesting baby organs, and using umbilical cord blood? One of these miracles requires a living child. The other a dead one. Think think think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stem cells and fetal cells are almost identical, neutral cells that don't have an IQ yet for what they will become.
> 
> They are not "harvesting" organs.  Tissue that would otherwise be disposed of as worm food to incinerated can be donated by the women for medical research use.
> 
> What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells Stem Cell Information
> Myths and Misconceptions About Stem Cell Research California s Stem Cell Agency
> http://www.ascb.org/newsfiles/fetaltissue.pdf
Click to expand...

 
So do you ever feel scummy when faced with the fact that you lie to promote baby killing, and to hide the disgusting trade in dead baby meat that the killing facilitates?


----------



## Faun

Vigilante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are the huge profits...sorry, HUGE PROFITS...that PP has been making?
> Do you have any figures?
> $30-$50 a part doesn't seem much by the time you take off the time to rip it from the tiny body, wrap it blood-soaked rags,callously toss it in an envelope and jam a stamp on it.
> I wouldn't think there would be much change from all that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well genius, using just ONE abortion at $30 a head (undoubtedly it is much more for one aborted baby can supply brain, heart, liver, kidney's, and other parts, BUT $30 times 330,000 dead is just about $10 Million, now tell me that $10 million, on the very lowest side, isn't worth doing it for PP for the year!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get 330,000 from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't look it up...too hard, or it pisses you off to  find out I'm right, as usual!
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/29/*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*...
> May 29, 2012 · *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the ... This would mean that *Planned Parenthood aborts* a *baby* about ... 391 *babies* are *aborted*. *Each year*, ...
> 
> *Sex-Selection Abortion: A War on Baby Girls | LifeNews.com *
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/31/sex-selection-*abortion*-a-war-on-*baby*-girls
> May 31, 2012 · Let’s not forget that *Planned Parenthood aborts* approximately *330,000* children *each year*. ... upon millions of new “missing *baby* girls” *each year*.
> 
> *Planned Parenthood: Over 333,000 Babies Aborted in 2011 ... *
> *Breitbart News Network*/big-government/2013/01/08/a-joyful-*planned*...
> That's the figure proudly released by *Planned Parenthood* Federation of America in their ... *Planned Parenthood*: Over 333,000 *Babies Aborted* in ... A *year* after ...
> 
> *Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
> 2012 May Right To Life of Southwest Indiana*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*-every...
> *Planned Parenthood* Does One ... *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the 1,200,000 ... *Each year*, *Planned Parenthood aborts* more than 320,000 innocent ...
> 
> *STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Stats and Analysis Overview *
> STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Home
> How many children has *Planned Parenthood* killed by *abortion*? How much money did *Planned Parenthood* make last *year*? ... preborn *babies*. *Planned Parenthood* kills ...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it amuses me that you're so retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your LOW 2 digit IQ always laughs when my 3 digit IQ bitch slaps you on the forum!
Click to expand...



You're such an idiot, you possibly do think you bitch slap me. 

Here's a perfect example.... you idiotically claimed PP is making no less than $10m a year on selling dead baby pieces.

A) that's insanely retarded as it relies on the notion that they're selling pieces from every baby aborted.

B) that's unbelievably stupid since it's based on them having zero costs.

As usual, vagisil ... thanks for playing!


----------



## EverCurious

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea your right, I'm just a fucking baby killer satan worshipper ~rolls eyes~
> 
> Ya'll chose to ignore the facts I did present regarding different medical camps idea of "when life began" because they didn't fit ya'lls agenda and have now segwayed into becoming unreasonable.  Liberal tactics, why you think they'd work here I have no idea but w/e.
> 
> We'll see if I give a shit enough to go find the medical communities thoughts for you to ignore, yet again, later.  At the moment I don't feel like it, sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we're not talking about when life begins. We're talking about Planned Parenthood fabricating medical records, engaging in gruesome and illegal practices, and harvesting dead babies for profit...and whether or not they should be subsidized by the feds when they are breaking the law in the most egregious manner.
> 
> Separate. Issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that so, well then explain why the court has barred these videos from being displayed because they found them to be misleading?  Are you arguing that the courts are in on this conspiracy theory to help PP make money off aborted fetal tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying you are either baldfaced lying, or you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The court made no such "ruling".
Click to expand...


Considering I never used the word "ruling" what-so-ever, who is the one bald faced lying here? 

Tell me why the court banned them from releasing the other videos then?


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> "...abortion practitioner Caroline Hoke was accused of over-billing Medicaid an estimated $430,380 for mostly undocumented services. Hoke was the state’s fourth highest billing Medicaid physician, asking the taxpayers to fork over $3.9 million to her from 2009-2011 as she served as the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of Illinois."
> 
> Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com


Why no answer.... are you too embarrassed to reveal your sources?

Earlier, you claimed a majority are against PP. What is your source that makes that claim?  Why won't you share it so we can all laugh at it?


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> "...abortion practitioner Caroline Hoke was accused of over-billing Medicaid an estimated $430,380 for mostly undocumented services. Hoke was the state’s fourth highest billing Medicaid physician, asking the taxpayers to fork over $3.9 million to her from 2009-2011 as she served as the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of Illinois."
> 
> Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com


That's a disgrace, I hope she's suitably punished.


----------



## idb

Faun said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...abortion practitioner Caroline Hoke was accused of over-billing Medicaid an estimated $430,380 for mostly undocumented services. Hoke was the state’s fourth highest billing Medicaid physician, asking the taxpayers to fork over $3.9 million to her from 2009-2011 as she served as the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of Illinois."
> 
> Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Why no answer.... are you too embarrassed to reveal your sources?
> 
> Earlier, you claimed a majority are against PP. What is your source that makes that claim?  Why won't you share it so we can all laugh at it?
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for answers to a couple of questions from her as well.
One was about Hitler and the other about the profit that PP make from selling 'baby' parts.
I'm glad I've got something else to do while I wait.


----------



## BluesLegend

Skylar said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> God damn even I underestimated the evil of the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that the accusation is complete horseshit, right?
> 
> Wait....you don't really care if its true, do you? You're not going to question the claim or fact check a thing, are you? You're just gonna nod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call me when the lying left start fact checking, I'll be over here not holding my breath for that to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that when you're gonna start fact checking? Because you swallowed that bullshit accusation pretty quickly. And without any evidence to back the claim up.
> 
> You genuinely don't care if the accusation is true, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly fine making up lies about the left, blatant lies. After all the left has been lying about the right for decades, its time they got a dose of their own medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there we go. Not only do you not care if the claim is true, you'll gladly lie.
> 
> That tells us all we need to know about you.
Click to expand...


The left dragged politics into the gutter with their incessant lies, half truths, spin. I see no reason why we shouldn't play by the same rules to level the playing field.


----------



## aris2chat

Faun said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where do you get your "stats" from? In a recent Rasmussen poll, respondents favor Planned Parenthood by a margin of 53% to 37%.
Click to expand...


63% of voters or more, depending on poll, are opposed to defunding PP


----------



## Vigilante

Faun said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well genius, using just ONE abortion at $30 a head (undoubtedly it is much more for one aborted baby can supply brain, heart, liver, kidney's, and other parts, BUT $30 times 330,000 dead is just about $10 Million, now tell me that $10 million, on the very lowest side, isn't worth doing it for PP for the year!
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get 330,000 from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't look it up...too hard, or it pisses you off to  find out I'm right, as usual!
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/29/*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*...
> May 29, 2012 · *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the ... This would mean that *Planned Parenthood aborts* a *baby* about ... 391 *babies* are *aborted*. *Each year*, ...
> 
> *Sex-Selection Abortion: A War on Baby Girls | LifeNews.com *
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/31/sex-selection-*abortion*-a-war-on-*baby*-girls
> May 31, 2012 · Let’s not forget that *Planned Parenthood aborts* approximately *330,000* children *each year*. ... upon millions of new “missing *baby* girls” *each year*.
> 
> *Planned Parenthood: Over 333,000 Babies Aborted in 2011 ... *
> *Breitbart News Network*/big-government/2013/01/08/a-joyful-*planned*...
> That's the figure proudly released by *Planned Parenthood* Federation of America in their ... *Planned Parenthood*: Over 333,000 *Babies Aborted* in ... A *year* after ...
> 
> *Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
> 2012 May Right To Life of Southwest Indiana*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*-every...
> *Planned Parenthood* Does One ... *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the 1,200,000 ... *Each year*, *Planned Parenthood aborts* more than 320,000 innocent ...
> 
> *STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Stats and Analysis Overview *
> STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Home
> How many children has *Planned Parenthood* killed by *abortion*? How much money did *Planned Parenthood* make last *year*? ... preborn *babies*. *Planned Parenthood* kills ...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it amuses me that you're so retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your LOW 2 digit IQ always laughs when my 3 digit IQ bitch slaps you on the forum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're such an idiot, you possibly do think you bitch slap me.
> 
> Here's a perfect example.... you idiotically claimed PP is making no less than $10m a year on selling dead baby pieces.
> 
> A) that's insanely retarded as it relies on the notion that they're selling piece from every baby aborted.
> 
> B) that's unbelievably stupid since it's based on them having zero costs.
> 
> As usual, vagisil ... thanks for playing!
Click to expand...


Well, IQ challenged, I went with the LOW valuation, the high valuation ismuch more $150 and up, so even with many less specimens, the rate of return is tremendous...You're so easy!


----------



## Skylar

BluesLegend said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that the accusation is complete horseshit, right?
> 
> Wait....you don't really care if its true, do you? You're not going to question the claim or fact check a thing, are you? You're just gonna nod.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me when the lying left start fact checking, I'll be over here not holding my breath for that to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that when you're gonna start fact checking? Because you swallowed that bullshit accusation pretty quickly. And without any evidence to back the claim up.
> 
> You genuinely don't care if the accusation is true, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly fine making up lies about the left, blatant lies. After all the left has been lying about the right for decades, its time they got a dose of their own medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there we go. Not only do you not care if the claim is true, you'll gladly lie.
> 
> That tells us all we need to know about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left dragged politics into the gutter with their incessant lies, half truths, spin. I see no reason why we shouldn't play by the same rules to level the playing field.
Click to expand...


You've already admitted you're a blatant liar. I really can't trust anything you say.


----------



## FA_Q2

BluesLegend said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize that the accusation is complete horseshit, right?
> 
> Wait....you don't really care if its true, do you? You're not going to question the claim or fact check a thing, are you? You're just gonna nod.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Call me when the lying left start fact checking, I'll be over here not holding my breath for that to happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that when you're gonna start fact checking? Because you swallowed that bullshit accusation pretty quickly. And without any evidence to back the claim up.
> 
> You genuinely don't care if the accusation is true, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly fine making up lies about the left, blatant lies. After all the left has been lying about the right for decades, its time they got a dose of their own medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there we go. Not only do you not care if the claim is true, you'll gladly lie.
> 
> That tells us all we need to know about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left dragged politics into the gutter with their incessant lies, half truths, spin. I see no reason why we shouldn't play by the same rules to level the playing field.
Click to expand...

never argue with a (liar) - they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

IOW, if you want to play using what you think is the democrat handbook you are guaranteed to lose - they are better at being democrats than you are.


----------



## Faun

idb said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...abortion practitioner Caroline Hoke was accused of over-billing Medicaid an estimated $430,380 for mostly undocumented services. Hoke was the state’s fourth highest billing Medicaid physician, asking the taxpayers to fork over $3.9 million to her from 2009-2011 as she served as the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of Illinois."
> 
> Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Why no answer.... are you too embarrassed to reveal your sources?
> 
> Earlier, you claimed a majority are against PP. What is your source that makes that claim?  Why won't you share it so we can all laugh at it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for answers to a couple of questions from her as well.
> One was about Hitler and the other about the profit that PP make from selling 'baby' parts.
> I'm glad I've got something else to do while I wait.
Click to expand...

Seems to me, she's embarrassed by what she posts.


----------



## BluesLegend

Skylar said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call me when the lying left start fact checking, I'll be over here not holding my breath for that to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that when you're gonna start fact checking? Because you swallowed that bullshit accusation pretty quickly. And without any evidence to back the claim up.
> 
> You genuinely don't care if the accusation is true, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly fine making up lies about the left, blatant lies. After all the left has been lying about the right for decades, its time they got a dose of their own medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there we go. Not only do you not care if the claim is true, you'll gladly lie.
> 
> That tells us all we need to know about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left dragged politics into the gutter with their incessant lies, half truths, spin. I see no reason why we shouldn't play by the same rules to level the playing field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already admitted you're a blatant liar. I really can't trust anything you say.
Click to expand...


Boohoo do you need a tissue?


----------



## Skylar

FA_Q2 said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> Call me when the lying left start fact checking, I'll be over here not holding my breath for that to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that when you're gonna start fact checking? Because you swallowed that bullshit accusation pretty quickly. And without any evidence to back the claim up.
> 
> You genuinely don't care if the accusation is true, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly fine making up lies about the left, blatant lies. After all the left has been lying about the right for decades, its time they got a dose of their own medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there we go. Not only do you not care if the claim is true, you'll gladly lie.
> 
> That tells us all we need to know about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left dragged politics into the gutter with their incessant lies, half truths, spin. I see no reason why we shouldn't play by the same rules to level the playing field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> never argue with a (liar) - they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
> 
> IOW, if you want to play using what you think is the democrat handbook you are guaranteed to lose - they are better at being democrats than you are.
Click to expand...


When someone tells me they are a blatant liar, I believe them.


----------



## Faun

Vigilante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you get 330,000 from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't look it up...too hard, or it pisses you off to  find out I'm right, as usual!
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/29/*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*...
> May 29, 2012 · *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the ... This would mean that *Planned Parenthood aborts* a *baby* about ... 391 *babies* are *aborted*. *Each year*, ...
> 
> *Sex-Selection Abortion: A War on Baby Girls | LifeNews.com *
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/31/sex-selection-*abortion*-a-war-on-*baby*-girls
> May 31, 2012 · Let’s not forget that *Planned Parenthood aborts* approximately *330,000* children *each year*. ... upon millions of new “missing *baby* girls” *each year*.
> 
> *Planned Parenthood: Over 333,000 Babies Aborted in 2011 ... *
> *Breitbart News Network*/big-government/2013/01/08/a-joyful-*planned*...
> That's the figure proudly released by *Planned Parenthood* Federation of America in their ... *Planned Parenthood*: Over 333,000 *Babies Aborted* in ... A *year* after ...
> 
> *Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
> 2012 May Right To Life of Southwest Indiana*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*-every...
> *Planned Parenthood* Does One ... *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the 1,200,000 ... *Each year*, *Planned Parenthood aborts* more than 320,000 innocent ...
> 
> *STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Stats and Analysis Overview *
> STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Home
> How many children has *Planned Parenthood* killed by *abortion*? How much money did *Planned Parenthood* make last *year*? ... preborn *babies*. *Planned Parenthood* kills ...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it amuses me that you're so retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your LOW 2 digit IQ always laughs when my 3 digit IQ bitch slaps you on the forum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're such an idiot, you possibly do think you bitch slap me.
> 
> Here's a perfect example.... you idiotically claimed PP is making no less than $10m a year on selling dead baby pieces.
> 
> A) that's insanely retarded as it relies on the notion that they're selling piece from every baby aborted.
> 
> B) that's unbelievably stupid since it's based on them having zero costs.
> 
> As usual, vagisil ... thanks for playing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, IQ challenged, I went with the LOW valuation, the high valuation ismuch more $150 and up, so even with many less specimens, the rate of return is tremendous...You're so easy!
Click to expand...

Too funny. Vagisil is sooo retarded, he has to change the parameters of his idiocy after being shown what a moron he is.


----------



## Skylar

BluesLegend said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that when you're gonna start fact checking? Because you swallowed that bullshit accusation pretty quickly. And without any evidence to back the claim up.
> 
> You genuinely don't care if the accusation is true, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly fine making up lies about the left, blatant lies. After all the left has been lying about the right for decades, its time they got a dose of their own medicine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then there we go. Not only do you not care if the claim is true, you'll gladly lie.
> 
> That tells us all we need to know about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left dragged politics into the gutter with their incessant lies, half truths, spin. I see no reason why we shouldn't play by the same rules to level the playing field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already admitted you're a blatant liar. I really can't trust anything you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boohoo do you need a tissue?
Click to expand...


I'm fine, thank you. I simply see no reason to take anything you say seriously. As you've already told me you're a blatant liar.


----------



## BluesLegend

Skylar said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly fine making up lies about the left, blatant lies. After all the left has been lying about the right for decades, its time they got a dose of their own medicine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there we go. Not only do you not care if the claim is true, you'll gladly lie.
> 
> That tells us all we need to know about you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left dragged politics into the gutter with their incessant lies, half truths, spin. I see no reason why we shouldn't play by the same rules to level the playing field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already admitted you're a blatant liar. I really can't trust anything you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boohoo do you need a tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm fine, thank you. I simply see no reason to take anything you say seriously. As you've already told me you're a blatant liar.
Click to expand...


The word of the day is, "gullible"


----------



## koshergrl

"...was a healthy woman who was approximately 16 weeks pregnant at the time of her abortion, well into the second trimester.

She suffered from an incomplete abortion. The Medical Examiner discovered pieces of placenta still attached to the inside of her womb even after a second abortion done by the hospital to remove fetal remains left by Planned Parenthood.

She suffered a 3/16 inch uterine perforation near forcep impression marks. D&E abortions involve dismembering the baby in the womb and removing the pieces with forceps.

She suffered an “extensive” perforation of her broad uterine ligament with a possible severing of her left uterine artery as a result of her abortion. This accounted for the internal bleeding that was discovered only too late by the hospital trauma team.

There were 1-1.5 liters of blood and clots inside her abdominal cavity. The human body holds roughly five liters of blood. Reaves bled about 30 percent of her total volume of blood into her abdomen, and that does not account for the amount of blood lost through what was likely substantial vaginal bleeding due to the retained fetal remains.

In a vain attempt to save her life, the hospital trauma team performed an emergency hysterectomy on Reaves."
 
"It is the official opinion of the Cook County Medical Examiner that Reaves’ cause of death “is due to hemorrhage resulting from cervical dilation and evacuation due to an intrauterine pregnancy.” In plain language, Reaves bled to death as the result of a bungled D&E abortion. The pregnancy itself did not contribute to her death."

Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com


----------



## idb

Faun said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...abortion practitioner Caroline Hoke was accused of over-billing Medicaid an estimated $430,380 for mostly undocumented services. Hoke was the state’s fourth highest billing Medicaid physician, asking the taxpayers to fork over $3.9 million to her from 2009-2011 as she served as the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of Illinois."
> 
> Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Why no answer.... are you too embarrassed to reveal your sources?
> 
> Earlier, you claimed a majority are against PP. What is your source that makes that claim?  Why won't you share it so we can all laugh at it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for answers to a couple of questions from her as well.
> One was about Hitler and the other about the profit that PP make from selling 'baby' parts.
> I'm glad I've got something else to do while I wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems to me, she's embarrassed by what she posts.
Click to expand...

She's an exponent of the Gish Gallop and doesn't expect to actually be challenged on the veracity of her 'facts'.


----------



## Vigilante

Faun said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't look it up...too hard, or it pisses you off to  find out I'm right, as usual!
> 
> 
> *Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/29/*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*...
> May 29, 2012 · *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the ... This would mean that *Planned Parenthood aborts* a *baby* about ... 391 *babies* are *aborted*. *Each year*, ...
> 
> *Sex-Selection Abortion: A War on Baby Girls | LifeNews.com *
> *LifeNews.com - The Pro-Life News Source*/2012/05/31/sex-selection-*abortion*-a-war-on-*baby*-girls
> May 31, 2012 · Let’s not forget that *Planned Parenthood aborts* approximately *330,000* children *each year*. ... upon millions of new “missing *baby* girls” *each year*.
> 
> *Planned Parenthood: Over 333,000 Babies Aborted in 2011 ... *
> *Breitbart News Network*/big-government/2013/01/08/a-joyful-*planned*...
> That's the figure proudly released by *Planned Parenthood* Federation of America in their ... *Planned Parenthood*: Over 333,000 *Babies Aborted* in ... A *year* after ...
> 
> *Planned Parenthood Does One Abortion Every 97 Seconds ... *
> 2012 May Right To Life of Southwest Indiana*planned-parenthood*-does-one-*abortion*-every...
> *Planned Parenthood* Does One ... *Planned Parenthood* performs *330,000* of the 1,200,000 ... *Each year*, *Planned Parenthood aborts* more than 320,000 innocent ...
> 
> *STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Stats and Analysis Overview *
> STOPP - Stop Planned Parenthood - Home
> How many children has *Planned Parenthood* killed by *abortion*? How much money did *Planned Parenthood* make last *year*? ... preborn *babies*. *Planned Parenthood* kills ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it amuses me that you're so retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your LOW 2 digit IQ always laughs when my 3 digit IQ bitch slaps you on the forum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're such an idiot, you possibly do think you bitch slap me.
> 
> Here's a perfect example.... you idiotically claimed PP is making no less than $10m a year on selling dead baby pieces.
> 
> A) that's insanely retarded as it relies on the notion that they're selling piece from every baby aborted.
> 
> B) that's unbelievably stupid since it's based on them having zero costs.
> 
> As usual, vagisil ... thanks for playing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, IQ challenged, I went with the LOW valuation, the high valuation ismuch more $150 and up, so even with many less specimens, the rate of return is tremendous...You're so easy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too funny. Vagisil is sooo retarded, he has to change the parameters of his idiocy after being shown what a moron he is.
Click to expand...


I see you have nothing...again! As always, you're my entertainment!


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> "...was a healthy woman who was approximately 16 weeks pregnant at the time of her abortion, well into the second trimester.
> 
> She suffered from an incomplete abortion. The Medical Examiner discovered pieces of placenta still attached to the inside of her womb even after a second abortion done by the hospital to remove fetal remains left by Planned Parenthood.
> 
> She suffered a 3/16 inch uterine perforation near forcep impression marks. D&E abortions involve dismembering the baby in the womb and removing the pieces with forceps.
> 
> She suffered an “extensive” perforation of her broad uterine ligament with a possible severing of her left uterine artery as a result of her abortion. This accounted for the internal bleeding that was discovered only too late by the hospital trauma team.
> 
> There were 1-1.5 liters of blood and clots inside her abdominal cavity. The human body holds roughly five liters of blood. Reaves bled about 30 percent of her total volume of blood into her abdomen, and that does not account for the amount of blood lost through what was likely substantial vaginal bleeding due to the retained fetal remains.
> 
> In a vain attempt to save her life, the hospital trauma team performed an emergency hysterectomy on Reaves."
> "It is the official opinion of the Cook County Medical Examiner that Reaves’ cause of death “is due to hemorrhage resulting from cervical dilation and evacuation due to an intrauterine pregnancy.” In plain language, Reaves bled to death as the result of a bungled D&E abortion. The pregnancy itself did not contribute to her death."
> 
> Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com


That's an awful shame all right.
Tragic for the family.


----------



## Skylar

BluesLegend said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there we go. Not only do you not care if the claim is true, you'll gladly lie.
> 
> That tells us all we need to know about you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left dragged politics into the gutter with their incessant lies, half truths, spin. I see no reason why we shouldn't play by the same rules to level the playing field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've already admitted you're a blatant liar. I really can't trust anything you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boohoo do you need a tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm fine, thank you. I simply see no reason to take anything you say seriously. As you've already told me you're a blatant liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word of the day is, "gullible"
Click to expand...


Either you were being truthful in telling me you are a blatant liar. In which case you're a liar.  Or you were lying to me, in which case you're a liar.

Either way, I can't take anything you say seriously.


----------



## BluesLegend

Skylar said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left dragged politics into the gutter with their incessant lies, half truths, spin. I see no reason why we shouldn't play by the same rules to level the playing field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already admitted you're a blatant liar. I really can't trust anything you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boohoo do you need a tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm fine, thank you. I simply see no reason to take anything you say seriously. As you've already told me you're a blatant liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The word of the day is, "gullible"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you were being truthful in telling me you are a blatant liar. In which case you're a liar.  Or you were lying to me, in which case you're a liar.
> 
> Either way, I can't take anything you say seriously.
Click to expand...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
Click to expand...

Whoooa! I directed you to my post which clearly refutes this "baby killer for profit horseshit" and you responded to me that you  are not interested enough to look. THEN...you post this! There is something wrong with this picture! What is wrong with you?!!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

koshergrl said:


> "...abortion practitioner Caroline Hoke was accused of over-billing Medicaid an estimated $430,380 for mostly undocumented services. Hoke was the state’s fourth highest billing Medicaid physician, asking the taxpayers to fork over $3.9 million to her from 2009-2011 as she served as the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of Illinois."
> 
> Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com


Whether true or not, what the hell does that have to do with the current issue. Can you do nothing more than throw dung at the wall and hope that something sticks?


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whoooa! I directed you to my post which clearly refutes this "baby killer for profit horseshit" and you responded to me that you  are not interested enough to look. THEN...you post this! There is something wrong with this picture! What is wrong with you?!!
Click to expand...

You haven't refuted shit, lol. That's why I'm not interested. You have posted nothing of note, aside from lies and garbage. Certainly no evidence or proof. Which is why I don't care enough to go back and pore over it again. Once was enough, tanks.


----------



## Faun

Vigilante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it amuses me that you're so retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your LOW 2 digit IQ always laughs when my 3 digit IQ bitch slaps you on the forum!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're such an idiot, you possibly do think you bitch slap me.
> 
> Here's a perfect example.... you idiotically claimed PP is making no less than $10m a year on selling dead baby pieces.
> 
> A) that's insanely retarded as it relies on the notion that they're selling piece from every baby aborted.
> 
> B) that's unbelievably stupid since it's based on them having zero costs.
> 
> As usual, vagisil ... thanks for playing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, IQ challenged, I went with the LOW valuation, the high valuation ismuch more $150 and up, so even with many less specimens, the rate of return is tremendous...You're so easy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too funny. Vagisil is sooo retarded, he has to change the parameters of his idiocy after being shown what a moron he is.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have nothing...again! As always, you're my entertainment!
Click to expand...

Nothing? I got you to tacitly admit your numbers were so stupid beyond belief, you had to change them. 

Now you're reduced to deluding yourself, that's "nothing." 

And that was just on (A) and (B). Now comes (C) and (D)...

C) Prove that PP is making a profit from this and that not all of their charges are to cover costs...

D) Explain the connection between advanced bioscience resources and PP...


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...abortion practitioner Caroline Hoke was accused of over-billing Medicaid an estimated $430,380 for mostly undocumented services. Hoke was the state’s fourth highest billing Medicaid physician, asking the taxpayers to fork over $3.9 million to her from 2009-2011 as she served as the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of Illinois."
> 
> Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Whether true or not, what the hell does that have to do with the current issue. Can you do nothing more than throw dung at the wall and hope that something sticks?
Click to expand...

 Of course it's relevant, since the baby killers are in full cry declaring "Planned Parenthood doesn't do illegal stuff!!!"


----------



## Faun

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...abortion practitioner Caroline Hoke was accused of over-billing Medicaid an estimated $430,380 for mostly undocumented services. Hoke was the state’s fourth highest billing Medicaid physician, asking the taxpayers to fork over $3.9 million to her from 2009-2011 as she served as the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of Illinois."
> 
> Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Whether true or not, what the hell does that have to do with the current issue. Can you do nothing more than throw dung at the wall and hope that something sticks?
Click to expand...

Because she thinks posting individual cases of malpractice contributes to her case of closing PP. She really is that stupid.


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...abortion practitioner Caroline Hoke was accused of over-billing Medicaid an estimated $430,380 for mostly undocumented services. Hoke was the state’s fourth highest billing Medicaid physician, asking the taxpayers to fork over $3.9 million to her from 2009-2011 as she served as the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of Illinois."
> 
> Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Whether true or not, what the hell does that have to do with the current issue. Can you do nothing more than throw dung at the wall and hope that something sticks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's relevant, since the baby killers are in full cry declaring "Planned Parenthood doesn't do illegal stuff!!!"
Click to expand...




> Planned Parenthood doesn't do illegal stuff!!!"



Link to that quote?


----------



## Vigilante

Faun said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your LOW 2 digit IQ always laughs when my 3 digit IQ bitch slaps you on the forum!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such an idiot, you possibly do think you bitch slap me.
> 
> Here's a perfect example.... you idiotically claimed PP is making no less than $10m a year on selling dead baby pieces.
> 
> A) that's insanely retarded as it relies on the notion that they're selling piece from every baby aborted.
> 
> B) that's unbelievably stupid since it's based on them having zero costs.
> 
> As usual, vagisil ... thanks for playing!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, IQ challenged, I went with the LOW valuation, the high valuation ismuch more $150 and up, so even with many less specimens, the rate of return is tremendous...You're so easy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too funny. Vagisil is sooo retarded, he has to change the parameters of his idiocy after being shown what a moron he is.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have nothing...again! As always, you're my entertainment!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing? I got you to tacitly admit your numbers were so stupid beyond belief, you had to change them.
> 
> Now you're reduced to deluding yourself, that's "nothing."
> 
> And that was just on (A) and (B). Now comes (C) and (D)...
> 
> C) Prove that PP is making a profit from this and that not all of their charges are to cover costs...
> 
> D) Explain the connection between advanced bioscience resources and PP...
Click to expand...


More bullshit, from a quif bullshitter!

I like this....
*Conservatives and pro-life activists* have bemoaned the mainstream media’s lack of coverage of the ongoing video exposé of Planned Parenthood’s efforts to harvest the body parts of aborted fetuses for money. An examination of the organization’s surprisingly close ties to major media corporations can help explain why leading disseminators of the news in the U.S. have shown so little interest in the controversy.

Some media outlets were so brazen in their support for Planned Parenthood that they were directly listed as donors on the sites of local affiliates. Before PP’s website was “down for maintenance” shortly after the group controversially claimed it was hacked by “extremists,” the local Washington, D.C. affiliate listed Gannett, the owners of _USA Today_ and several other major newspapers, including the _Detroit Free Press_ and the _Indianapolis Star_, and the Washington Post Co., former owners of the _Washington Post_ for decades until Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos bought the newspaper in 2013, as financial supporters.

As recently as 2014, the _San Jose Mercury News_ and Yahoo, which runs the popular Yahoo News site, were listed as donors to Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo in Northern California.

Discover the Networks, a website run by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, lists the New York Times Company Foundation as a PP donor.


And while there is no evidence that new _Washington Post_ owner Bezos is a personal donor, customers at his Amazon.com site can directly support an abortion clinic with a portion of their purchases via the Amazon Smile program.

Customers can also buy the “emergency contraception” known as Plan B, which can induce an abortion after conception, directly from the site.

These facts perhaps explain why _The Washington Post_, in its coverage of the furor over the first secret Planned Parenthood video, changed its headline from “organ harvesting” to the softer “fetal organs used for research,” as infowars.com reports.

Another upfront supporter of Planned Parenthood is Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable arm of Bloomberg News owner and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The philanthropic group announced in March of 2014 that it was giving a staggering $50 million to strengthen “reproductive health rights in Burkina Faso, Nicaragua, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda,” the Daily Caller reports.

Beyond these overt acts of support, however, there lies a far more elaborate network of personal connections, business ties and charitable foundation links between Planned Parenthood and a stunning number of major media outlets, including all four of the major television networks.

The Ford Foundation has been a major supporter of abortion rights and Planned Parenthood for decades, with the data on its financial support of the organization running far too long to detail.

Random example: $2.5 million given to PP in 2013, according to Ford’s tax return (see page 523).

In fact, sitting on Ford’s Board of Trustees at this moment is none other than Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.

The foundation has made a major effort to involve itself in U.S. media in recent years, even giving grants to the _Los Angeles Times_ and the _Washington Post_ in 2012 as part of what it called “an investment in quality journalism.”

Ford also sponsored an NBC News report on “Poverty in America,” as foundation “Media Officer” Barbara Raab, a former “senior newswriter for NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams,” proudly reports on the group’s website.

An especially disturbing part of the foundation’s efforts to financially sponsor ostensibly neutral media outlets is the group’s hefty support for two minority journalist organizations.

The National Association of Black Journalists received $150,000 from Ford in 2013 for “media/content development,” while the National Association of Hispanic Journalists is listed as having received $100,000 in 2009.

Elsewhere on Ford’s website, an action plan to promote abortion rights in the United States by developing “national reproductive and sexual health policies and laws supported by regional and international standards” prominently features two prongs under the “Communications and Public Education” heading, a “National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health” and a “Black Women’s Health Imperative.”

Additionally, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s 2013 tax return shows only one group not directly associated with the organization’s usual business endeavors that received funds from the organization.

On page 64 is listed a $12,500 donation from PP to The National Association of Black Journalists, with the “purpose of grant or assistance” listed as “to support programs regarding reproductive health.”.....

Why News Corporations Protect Planned Parenthood - Crisis Magazine


----------



## koshergrl

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...abortion practitioner Caroline Hoke was accused of over-billing Medicaid an estimated $430,380 for mostly undocumented services. Hoke was the state’s fourth highest billing Medicaid physician, asking the taxpayers to fork over $3.9 million to her from 2009-2011 as she served as the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of Illinois."
> 
> Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Whether true or not, what the hell does that have to do with the current issue. Can you do nothing more than throw dung at the wall and hope that something sticks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's relevant, since the baby killers are in full cry declaring "Planned Parenthood doesn't do illegal stuff!!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood doesn't do illegal stuff!!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to that quote?
Click to expand...

 What is with you guys demanding that people go back through the thread that YOU are participating in to link to statements YOU made.


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...abortion practitioner Caroline Hoke was accused of over-billing Medicaid an estimated $430,380 for mostly undocumented services. Hoke was the state’s fourth highest billing Medicaid physician, asking the taxpayers to fork over $3.9 million to her from 2009-2011 as she served as the Medical Director for Planned Parenthood of Illinois."
> 
> Planned Parenthood Must Pay 2 Million Settlement After Killing Woman in Abortion LifeNews.com
> 
> 
> 
> Whether true or not, what the hell does that have to do with the current issue. Can you do nothing more than throw dung at the wall and hope that something sticks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's relevant, since the baby killers are in full cry declaring "Planned Parenthood doesn't do illegal stuff!!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood doesn't do illegal stuff!!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to that quote?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is with you guys demanding that people go back through the thread that YOU are participating in to link to statements YOU made.
Click to expand...

That's my quote?!
Well, I'd better go back and find it then...stand by...


----------



## Faun

Vigilante said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such an idiot, you possibly do think you bitch slap me.
> 
> Here's a perfect example.... you idiotically claimed PP is making no less than $10m a year on selling dead baby pieces.
> 
> A) that's insanely retarded as it relies on the notion that they're selling piece from every baby aborted.
> 
> B) that's unbelievably stupid since it's based on them having zero costs.
> 
> As usual, vagisil ... thanks for playing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, IQ challenged, I went with the LOW valuation, the high valuation ismuch more $150 and up, so even with many less specimens, the rate of return is tremendous...You're so easy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too funny. Vagisil is sooo retarded, he has to change the parameters of his idiocy after being shown what a moron he is.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have nothing...again! As always, you're my entertainment!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing? I got you to tacitly admit your numbers were so stupid beyond belief, you had to change them.
> 
> Now you're reduced to deluding yourself, that's "nothing."
> 
> And that was just on (A) and (B). Now comes (C) and (D)...
> 
> C) Prove that PP is making a profit from this and that not all of their charges are to cover costs...
> 
> D) Explain the connection between advanced bioscience resources and PP...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More bullshit, from a quif bullshitter!
> 
> I like this....
> *Conservatives and pro-life activists* have bemoaned the mainstream media’s lack of coverage of the ongoing video exposé of Planned Parenthood’s efforts to harvest the body parts of aborted fetuses for money. An examination of the organization’s surprisingly close ties to major media corporations can help explain why leading disseminators of the news in the U.S. have shown so little interest in the controversy.
> 
> Some media outlets were so brazen in their support for Planned Parenthood that they were directly listed as donors on the sites of local affiliates. Before PP’s website was “down for maintenance” shortly after the group controversially claimed it was hacked by “extremists,” the local Washington, D.C. affiliate listed Gannett, the owners of _USA Today_ and several other major newspapers, including the _Detroit Free Press_ and the _Indianapolis Star_, and the Washington Post Co., former owners of the _Washington Post_ for decades until Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos bought the newspaper in 2013, as financial supporters.
> 
> As recently as 2014, the _San Jose Mercury News_ and Yahoo, which runs the popular Yahoo News site, were listed as donors to Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo in Northern California.
> 
> Discover the Networks, a website run by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, lists the New York Times Company Foundation as a PP donor.
> 
> 
> And while there is no evidence that new _Washington Post_ owner Bezos is a personal donor, customers at his Amazon.com site can directly support an abortion clinic with a portion of their purchases via the Amazon Smile program.
> 
> Customers can also buy the “emergency contraception” known as Plan B, which can induce an abortion after conception, directly from the site.
> 
> These facts perhaps explain why _The Washington Post_, in its coverage of the furor over the first secret Planned Parenthood video, changed its headline from “organ harvesting” to the softer “fetal organs used for research,” as infowars.com reports.
> 
> Another upfront supporter of Planned Parenthood is Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable arm of Bloomberg News owner and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
> 
> The philanthropic group announced in March of 2014 that it was giving a staggering $50 million to strengthen “reproductive health rights in Burkina Faso, Nicaragua, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda,” the Daily Caller reports.
> 
> Beyond these overt acts of support, however, there lies a far more elaborate network of personal connections, business ties and charitable foundation links between Planned Parenthood and a stunning number of major media outlets, including all four of the major television networks.
> 
> The Ford Foundation has been a major supporter of abortion rights and Planned Parenthood for decades, with the data on its financial support of the organization running far too long to detail.
> 
> Random example: $2.5 million given to PP in 2013, according to Ford’s tax return (see page 523).
> 
> In fact, sitting on Ford’s Board of Trustees at this moment is none other than Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.
> 
> The foundation has made a major effort to involve itself in U.S. media in recent years, even giving grants to the _Los Angeles Times_ and the _Washington Post_ in 2012 as part of what it called “an investment in quality journalism.”
> 
> Ford also sponsored an NBC News report on “Poverty in America,” as foundation “Media Officer” Barbara Raab, a former “senior newswriter for NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams,” proudly reports on the group’s website.
> 
> An especially disturbing part of the foundation’s efforts to financially sponsor ostensibly neutral media outlets is the group’s hefty support for two minority journalist organizations.
> 
> The National Association of Black Journalists received $150,000 from Ford in 2013 for “media/content development,” while the National Association of Hispanic Journalists is listed as having received $100,000 in 2009.
> 
> Elsewhere on Ford’s website, an action plan to promote abortion rights in the United States by developing “national reproductive and sexual health policies and laws supported by regional and international standards” prominently features two prongs under the “Communications and Public Education” heading, a “National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health” and a “Black Women’s Health Imperative.”
> 
> Additionally, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s 2013 tax return shows only one group not directly associated with the organization’s usual business endeavors that received funds from the organization.
> 
> On page 64 is listed a $12,500 donation from PP to The National Association of Black Journalists, with the “purpose of grant or assistance” listed as “to support programs regarding reproductive health.”.....
> 
> Why News Corporations Protect Planned Parenthood - Crisis Magazine
Click to expand...

None of that even begins to address my questions, vagisil.

Whassamatter? Too dumb to answer?

C) Prove that PP is making a profit from this and that not all of their charges are to cover costs...

D) Explain the connection between advanced bioscience resources and PP...


----------



## idb

Faun said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, IQ challenged, I went with the LOW valuation, the high valuation ismuch more $150 and up, so even with many less specimens, the rate of return is tremendous...You're so easy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny. Vagisil is sooo retarded, he has to change the parameters of his idiocy after being shown what a moron he is.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you have nothing...again! As always, you're my entertainment!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing? I got you to tacitly admit your numbers were so stupid beyond belief, you had to change them.
> 
> Now you're reduced to deluding yourself, that's "nothing."
> 
> And that was just on (A) and (B). Now comes (C) and (D)...
> 
> C) Prove that PP is making a profit from this and that not all of their charges are to cover costs...
> 
> D) Explain the connection between advanced bioscience resources and PP...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More bullshit, from a quif bullshitter!
> 
> I like this....
> *Conservatives and pro-life activists* have bemoaned the mainstream media’s lack of coverage of the ongoing video exposé of Planned Parenthood’s efforts to harvest the body parts of aborted fetuses for money. An examination of the organization’s surprisingly close ties to major media corporations can help explain why leading disseminators of the news in the U.S. have shown so little interest in the controversy.
> 
> Some media outlets were so brazen in their support for Planned Parenthood that they were directly listed as donors on the sites of local affiliates. Before PP’s website was “down for maintenance” shortly after the group controversially claimed it was hacked by “extremists,” the local Washington, D.C. affiliate listed Gannett, the owners of _USA Today_ and several other major newspapers, including the _Detroit Free Press_ and the _Indianapolis Star_, and the Washington Post Co., former owners of the _Washington Post_ for decades until Amazon.com owner Jeff Bezos bought the newspaper in 2013, as financial supporters.
> 
> As recently as 2014, the _San Jose Mercury News_ and Yahoo, which runs the popular Yahoo News site, were listed as donors to Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo in Northern California.
> 
> Discover the Networks, a website run by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, lists the New York Times Company Foundation as a PP donor.
> 
> 
> And while there is no evidence that new _Washington Post_ owner Bezos is a personal donor, customers at his Amazon.com site can directly support an abortion clinic with a portion of their purchases via the Amazon Smile program.
> 
> Customers can also buy the “emergency contraception” known as Plan B, which can induce an abortion after conception, directly from the site.
> 
> These facts perhaps explain why _The Washington Post_, in its coverage of the furor over the first secret Planned Parenthood video, changed its headline from “organ harvesting” to the softer “fetal organs used for research,” as infowars.com reports.
> 
> Another upfront supporter of Planned Parenthood is Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable arm of Bloomberg News owner and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.
> 
> The philanthropic group announced in March of 2014 that it was giving a staggering $50 million to strengthen “reproductive health rights in Burkina Faso, Nicaragua, Senegal, Tanzania, and Uganda,” the Daily Caller reports.
> 
> Beyond these overt acts of support, however, there lies a far more elaborate network of personal connections, business ties and charitable foundation links between Planned Parenthood and a stunning number of major media outlets, including all four of the major television networks.
> 
> The Ford Foundation has been a major supporter of abortion rights and Planned Parenthood for decades, with the data on its financial support of the organization running far too long to detail.
> 
> Random example: $2.5 million given to PP in 2013, according to Ford’s tax return (see page 523).
> 
> In fact, sitting on Ford’s Board of Trustees at this moment is none other than Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.
> 
> The foundation has made a major effort to involve itself in U.S. media in recent years, even giving grants to the _Los Angeles Times_ and the _Washington Post_ in 2012 as part of what it called “an investment in quality journalism.”
> 
> Ford also sponsored an NBC News report on “Poverty in America,” as foundation “Media Officer” Barbara Raab, a former “senior newswriter for NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams,” proudly reports on the group’s website.
> 
> An especially disturbing part of the foundation’s efforts to financially sponsor ostensibly neutral media outlets is the group’s hefty support for two minority journalist organizations.
> 
> The National Association of Black Journalists received $150,000 from Ford in 2013 for “media/content development,” while the National Association of Hispanic Journalists is listed as having received $100,000 in 2009.
> 
> Elsewhere on Ford’s website, an action plan to promote abortion rights in the United States by developing “national reproductive and sexual health policies and laws supported by regional and international standards” prominently features two prongs under the “Communications and Public Education” heading, a “National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health” and a “Black Women’s Health Imperative.”
> 
> Additionally, Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s 2013 tax return shows only one group not directly associated with the organization’s usual business endeavors that received funds from the organization.
> 
> On page 64 is listed a $12,500 donation from PP to The National Association of Black Journalists, with the “purpose of grant or assistance” listed as “to support programs regarding reproductive health.”.....
> 
> Why News Corporations Protect Planned Parenthood - Crisis Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that even begins to address my questions, vagisil.
> 
> Whassamatter? Too dumb to answer?
> 
> C) Prove that PP is making a profit from this and that not all of their charges are to cover costs...
> 
> D) Explain the connection between advanced bioscience resources and PP...
Click to expand...

To be fair...he did explain C).
Apparently PP gives no discount on bulk delivery of baby parts...that's where the BIG money is!


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

*Pore over vs. pour over*
The phrase meaning _to study carefully _is _*pore over*. _It comes from a little-used sense of the verb _pore_—namely, _to meditate deeply. _In modern writing, this sense of _pore _rarely appears outside this phrase.

*Pour over *is of course a meaningful phrase in its own right, but it has nothing to do with studying. It’s what you do, for example, with milk to a bowl of cereal.


----------



## koshergrl

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "If you are anti-Planned Parenthood, your children may not be vaccinated! Punish the non-believers!"
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not hard to find medical treatments...sorry, I forgot who I'm talking to, I meant to address you in words you understand...I mean "flavour enhancers" that have been researched and developed using fetal tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines have been one of the chief public benefits of fetal tissue research. Vaccines for hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies, for example, were developed using cell lines grown from tissue from two elective abortions, one in England and one in Sweden, that were performed in the 1960s.
> 
> German measles, also known as rubella, “caused 5,000 spontaneous abortions a year prior to the vaccine,” said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious-disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “We wouldn’t have saved all those lives had it not been for those cells.”
> 
> Fetal tissue was “absolutely critical” to the development of a potential Ebola vaccine that has shown promise, said Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, an associate director at NIH, which last year handed out $76 million for work involving fetal tissue, or 0.2 percent of the agency’s research budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists say fetal tissue remains essential for vaccines and developing treatments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah...a non-biased PBS article about how we need to kill babies..to save babies.
> 
> You realize that is EXACTLY the same argument the Nazis used to justify killing innocents, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I didn't know that.
> I'd love some quotes...it might change my mind.
Click to expand...

 
"The Aktion T4 programme used the term 'euthanasia' as bureaucratic cover and in the minimal public relations efforts (see poster) to invest what was essentially an outgrowth of eugenics with greater medical legitimacy.[17] It is however clear that little, if any, of the killing was done to alleviate pain or suffering on the part of the victims. Rather, the bulk of the evidence — including faked death certificates, deception of the victims and of the victims' families, and widespread use of cremation — indicates the killing was done solely according to the socio-political aims and beliefs of the perpetrators.[17]"

Action T4 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Asclepias

Steve_McGarrett said:


> We need Charleton Heston more than ever. This is appalling.
> 
> Fetal Parts Sold for Scientific Research on Cosmetics Flavor Enhancers - Aleteia


What a dumbass!


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whoooa! I directed you to my post which clearly refutes this "baby killer for profit horseshit" and you responded to me that you  are not interested enough to look. THEN...you post this! There is something wrong with this picture! What is wrong with you?!!
Click to expand...



I don't see a post of yours in the quote you posted.

I will be glad to let you tell my your lies about why planned parenthood is not selling fetal organ tissue.

Where is that defense??

Let's get the party started, I will not repeat anything and the first to sling an ad hominem is the looser.

Whenever you get ready ball is in your court.

When asked a question, ignoring or refusing to answer that question will be a point against you.

Clean and fair if you are intelligent enough to make your points and refute mine.

No weasling, no hiding, first lie you are caught bold face in, you loose.

How big are your balls bitch??


----------



## koshergrl

"The idea of sterilising those carrying hereditary defects or exhibiting what was thought to be hereditary antisocial behaviour was widely accepted. The United States, Sweden, Switzerland and other countries also passed laws authorizing sterilization of certain classes of people."

So what they did was shut down the Catholic institutions, because they knew they would not comply with killing off the residents. Then when everybody was shoved into squalid and deplorable living conditions, they claimed that the misery of the patients justified killing them.

"During the 1930s the Nazi Party carried out a campaign of propaganda in favour of "euthanasia". The National Socialist Racial and Political Office (NSRPA) produced leaflets, posters and short films to be shown in cinemas, pointing out to Germans the cost of maintaining asylums for the incurably ill and insane. These films included _The Inheritance_ (Das Erbe, 1935), _The Victim of the Past_ (Opfer der Vergangenheit, 1937), which was given a major premiere in Berlin and was shown in all German cinemas, and _I Accuse_ (Ich klage an, 1941), which was based on a novel by Dr Hellmuth Unger, a consultant for the child 'euthanasia' program.[38] Catholic institutions, which could be expected to resist the killing of their patients, were progressively closed and their inmates transferred to already-overcrowded state institutions. There the squalid conditions provided further ammunition for campaigns in favour of 'euthanasia'"


Action T4 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## koshergrl

DrDoomNGloom said:


> *Pore over vs. pour over*
> The phrase meaning _to study carefully _is _*pore over*. _It comes from a little-used sense of the verb _pore_—namely, _to meditate deeply. _In modern writing, this sense of _pore _rarely appears outside this phrase.
> 
> *Pour over *is of course a meaningful phrase in its own right, but it has nothing to do with studying. It’s what you do, for example, with milk to a bowl of cereal.


Did I bamboozle somebody with my extensive vocabulary? If I did, it's someone I already have on ignore..because I have heretofore recognized their idiocy.


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you've changed your position in one post?
> 
> 
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not hard to find medical treatments...sorry, I forgot who I'm talking to, I meant to address you in words you understand...I mean "flavour enhancers" that have been researched and developed using fetal tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines have been one of the chief public benefits of fetal tissue research. Vaccines for hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies, for example, were developed using cell lines grown from tissue from two elective abortions, one in England and one in Sweden, that were performed in the 1960s.
> 
> German measles, also known as rubella, “caused 5,000 spontaneous abortions a year prior to the vaccine,” said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious-disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “We wouldn’t have saved all those lives had it not been for those cells.”
> 
> Fetal tissue was “absolutely critical” to the development of a potential Ebola vaccine that has shown promise, said Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, an associate director at NIH, which last year handed out $76 million for work involving fetal tissue, or 0.2 percent of the agency’s research budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists say fetal tissue remains essential for vaccines and developing treatments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah...a non-biased PBS article about how we need to kill babies..to save babies.
> 
> You realize that is EXACTLY the same argument the Nazis used to justify killing innocents, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I didn't know that.
> I'd love some quotes...it might change my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Aktion T4 programme used the term 'euthanasia' as bureaucratic cover and in the minimal public relations efforts (see poster) to invest what was essentially an outgrowth of eugenics with greater medical legitimacy.[17] It is however clear that little, if any, of the killing was done to alleviate pain or suffering on the part of the victims. Rather, the bulk of the evidence — including faked death certificates, deception of the victims and of the victims' families, and widespread use of cremation — indicates the killing was done solely according to the socio-political aims and beliefs of the perpetrators.[17]"
> 
> Action T4 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> "The idea of sterilising those carrying hereditary defects or exhibiting what was thought to be hereditary antisocial behaviour was widely accepted. The United States, Sweden, Switzerland and other countries also passed laws authorizing sterilization of certain classes of people."
> 
> So what they did was shut down the Catholic institutions, because they knew they would not comply with killing off the residents. Then when everybody was shoved into squalid and deplorable living conditions, they claimed that the misery of the patients justified killing them.
> 
> "During the 1930s the Nazi Party carried out a campaign of propaganda in favour of "euthanasia". The National Socialist Racial and Political Office (NSRPA) produced leaflets, posters and short films to be shown in cinemas, pointing out to Germans the cost of maintaining asylums for the incurably ill and insane. These films included _The Inheritance_ (Das Erbe, 1935), _The Victim of the Past_ (Opfer der Vergangenheit, 1937), which was given a major premiere in Berlin and was shown in all German cinemas, and _I Accuse_ (Ich klage an, 1941), which was based on a novel by Dr Hellmuth Unger, a consultant for the child 'euthanasia' program.[38] Catholic institutions, which could be expected to resist the killing of their patients, were progressively closed and their inmates transferred to already-overcrowded state institutions. There the squalid conditions provided further ammunition for campaigns in favour of 'euthanasia'"
> 
> 
> Action T4 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Terrible!


----------



## koshergrl

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see your pea sized brain can't handle 2 thoughts on the same subject as most moronic baby killer can't!  Now tell us, what medical miracle has come out of USED BABY PARTS over the last decade, that we know of,  PP has been selling off and making HUGE PROFITS from these body parts.....330,000 DEAD BABY a year. makes TONS of $30-$50 human baby parts!
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to find medical treatments...sorry, I forgot who I'm talking to, I meant to address you in words you understand...I mean "flavour enhancers" that have been researched and developed using fetal tissue.
> 
> 
> 
> Vaccines have been one of the chief public benefits of fetal tissue research. Vaccines for hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies, for example, were developed using cell lines grown from tissue from two elective abortions, one in England and one in Sweden, that were performed in the 1960s.
> 
> German measles, also known as rubella, “caused 5,000 spontaneous abortions a year prior to the vaccine,” said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious-disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “We wouldn’t have saved all those lives had it not been for those cells.”
> 
> Fetal tissue was “absolutely critical” to the development of a potential Ebola vaccine that has shown promise, said Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, an associate director at NIH, which last year handed out $76 million for work involving fetal tissue, or 0.2 percent of the agency’s research budget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scientists say fetal tissue remains essential for vaccines and developing treatments
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah...a non-biased PBS article about how we need to kill babies..to save babies.
> 
> You realize that is EXACTLY the same argument the Nazis used to justify killing innocents, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I didn't know that.
> I'd love some quotes...it might change my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Aktion T4 programme used the term 'euthanasia' as bureaucratic cover and in the minimal public relations efforts (see poster) to invest what was essentially an outgrowth of eugenics with greater medical legitimacy.[17] It is however clear that little, if any, of the killing was done to alleviate pain or suffering on the part of the victims. Rather, the bulk of the evidence — including faked death certificates, deception of the victims and of the victims' families, and widespread use of cremation — indicates the killing was done solely according to the socio-political aims and beliefs of the perpetrators.[17]"
> 
> Action T4 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
Click to expand...

No, you retard. I am saying that Nazis of the third Reich, like progressives today, worked hard to convince people that killing certain groups was merciful and ultimately saved lives. They, like progressives of today, were just depraved liars who loved to kill the vulnerable and weak. It made them feel superior....as it makes progressives today feel superior.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

idb said:


> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.



You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?

The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??

It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.

Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.


----------



## HenryBHough

In some states might it be possible that these sales are not just an offense against humanity but also are not paying appropriate sales taxes?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

HenryBHough said:


> In some states might it be possible that these sales are not just an offense against humanity but also are not paying appropriate sales taxes?



The recovery of cost is non taxable.

Selling fetal tissue is illegal.

Would that be like a marijuana tax??


----------



## Faun

DrDoomNGloom said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some states might it be possible that these sales are not just an offense against humanity but also are not paying appropriate sales taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The recovery of cost is non taxable.
> 
> Selling fetal tissue is illegal.
> 
> Would that be like a marijuana tax??
Click to expand...

Well then it's a good thing PP was selling fetal tissue. Whew.


----------



## idb

DrDoomNGloom said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
Click to expand...

Neither.
You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.


----------



## idb

DrDoomNGloom said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
Click to expand...

I am interested though to know what makes that an intelligence test.
Does you not knowing what street I live on make you unintelligent?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

idb said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
Click to expand...



Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.

It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.

Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.

Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not hard to find medical treatments...sorry, I forgot who I'm talking to, I meant to address you in words you understand...I mean "flavour enhancers" that have been researched and developed using fetal tissue.
> Scientists say fetal tissue remains essential for vaccines and developing treatments
> 
> 
> 
> Ah...a non-biased PBS article about how we need to kill babies..to save babies.
> 
> You realize that is EXACTLY the same argument the Nazis used to justify killing innocents, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I didn't know that.
> I'd love some quotes...it might change my mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The Aktion T4 programme used the term 'euthanasia' as bureaucratic cover and in the minimal public relations efforts (see poster) to invest what was essentially an outgrowth of eugenics with greater medical legitimacy.[17] It is however clear that little, if any, of the killing was done to alleviate pain or suffering on the part of the victims. Rather, the bulk of the evidence — including faked death certificates, deception of the victims and of the victims' families, and widespread use of cremation — indicates the killing was done solely according to the socio-political aims and beliefs of the perpetrators.[17]"
> 
> Action T4 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you retard. I am saying that Nazis of the third Reich, like progressives today, worked hard to convince people that killing certain groups was merciful and ultimately saved lives. They, like progressives of today, were just depraved liars who loved to kill the vulnerable and weak. It made them feel superior....as it makes progressives today feel superior.
Click to expand...

So, Hitler apologist...just what are the certain groups that progressives work hard to convince...blah...blah...blither?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

*Embryonic stem cells*
Embryonic stem cells are obtained from the inner cell mass of the _blastocyst_, a mainly hollow ball of cells that, in the human, forms three to five days after an egg cell is fertilized by a sperm. A human blastocyst is about the size of the dot above this “i.”

In normal development, the cells inside the blastocyst divide for a short time, then begin developing into more specialized cells that give rise to the entire body—all of our tissues and organs. Scientists can extract the inner cell mass and grow these in the lab. These are embryonic stem cells, and under the right conditions, they can grow indefinitely in the lab.

Embryonic stem cells are _pluripotent_, meaning they can give rise to every cell type in the fully formed body, but not the placenta and umbilical cord. These cells are incredibly valuable because they provide a renewable resource for studying normal development and disease, and for testing drugs and other therapies. Human embryonic stem cells have been derived primarily from blastocysts created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for assisted reproduction that were no longer needed.

*Tissue-specific stem cells*
Tissue-specific stem cells (also referred to as _somatic _or _adult_ stem cells) are more specialized than embryonic stem cells. Typically, these stem cells can generate different cell types for the specific tissue or organ in which they live.

For example, blood-forming (or _hematopoietic_) stem cells in the bone marrow can give rise to red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. However, blood-forming stem cells don’t generate liver or lung or brain cells, and stem cells in other tissues and organs don’t generate red or white blood cells or platelets.

Some tissues and organs within your body contain small caches of tissue-specific stem cells whose job it is to replace cells from that tissue that are lost in normal day-to-day living or in injury, such as those in your skin, blood, and the lining of your gut.

Tissue-specific stem cells can be difficult to find in the human body, and they don’t seem to self-renew in culture as easily as embryonic stem cells do. However, study of these cells has increased our general knowledge about normal development, what changes in aging, and what happens with injury and disease.
Types of Stem Cells


----------



## idb

DrDoomNGloom said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
Click to expand...

And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.

Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.


----------



## idb

DrDoomNGloom said:


> *Embryonic stem cells*
> Embryonic stem cells are obtained from the inner cell mass of the _blastocyst_, a mainly hollow ball of cells that, in the human, forms three to five days after an egg cell is fertilized by a sperm. A human blastocyst is about the size of the dot above this “i.”
> 
> In normal development, the cells inside the blastocyst divide for a short time, then begin developing into more specialized cells that give rise to the entire body—all of our tissues and organs. Scientists can extract the inner cell mass and grow these in the lab. These are embryonic stem cells, and under the right conditions, they can grow indefinitely in the lab.
> 
> Embryonic stem cells are _pluripotent_, meaning they can give rise to every cell type in the fully formed body, but not the placenta and umbilical cord. These cells are incredibly valuable because they provide a renewable resource for studying normal development and disease, and for testing drugs and other therapies. Human embryonic stem cells have been derived primarily from blastocysts created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for assisted reproduction that were no longer needed.
> 
> *Tissue-specific stem cells*
> Tissue-specific stem cells (also referred to as _somatic _or _adult_ stem cells) are more specialized than embryonic stem cells. Typically, these stem cells can generate different cell types for the specific tissue or organ in which they live.
> 
> For example, blood-forming (or _hematopoietic_) stem cells in the bone marrow can give rise to red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. However, blood-forming stem cells don’t generate liver or lung or brain cells, and stem cells in other tissues and organs don’t generate red or white blood cells or platelets.
> 
> Some tissues and organs within your body contain small caches of tissue-specific stem cells whose job it is to replace cells from that tissue that are lost in normal day-to-day living or in injury, such as those in your skin, blood, and the lining of your gut.
> 
> Tissue-specific stem cells can be difficult to find in the human body, and they don’t seem to self-renew in culture as easily as embryonic stem cells do. However, study of these cells has increased our general knowledge about normal development, what changes in aging, and what happens with injury and disease.
> Types of Stem Cells


Golly...well done!


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Like I said, you are an ignorant fucking moron.

No I don't think your knowing your address is relevant, just another ignorant example by a small ignorant man.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

idb said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
Click to expand...




Go ahead double down on the ignorant fucking retarded moron shit, stupid .....................

What do you think they are exchanging for cash, shit head??


----------



## idb

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Like I said, you are an ignorant fucking moron.
> 
> No I don't think your knowing your address is relevant, just another ignorant example by a small ignorant man.


So, how does knowing the difference between embryonic and tissue-specific stem cells make you more or less intelligent?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

idb said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Embryonic stem cells*
> Embryonic stem cells are obtained from the inner cell mass of the _blastocyst_, a mainly hollow ball of cells that, in the human, forms three to five days after an egg cell is fertilized by a sperm. A human blastocyst is about the size of the dot above this “i.”
> 
> In normal development, the cells inside the blastocyst divide for a short time, then begin developing into more specialized cells that give rise to the entire body—all of our tissues and organs. Scientists can extract the inner cell mass and grow these in the lab. These are embryonic stem cells, and under the right conditions, they can grow indefinitely in the lab.
> 
> Embryonic stem cells are _pluripotent_, meaning they can give rise to every cell type in the fully formed body, but not the placenta and umbilical cord. These cells are incredibly valuable because they provide a renewable resource for studying normal development and disease, and for testing drugs and other therapies. Human embryonic stem cells have been derived primarily from blastocysts created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) for assisted reproduction that were no longer needed.
> 
> *Tissue-specific stem cells*
> Tissue-specific stem cells (also referred to as _somatic _or _adult_ stem cells) are more specialized than embryonic stem cells. Typically, these stem cells can generate different cell types for the specific tissue or organ in which they live.
> 
> For example, blood-forming (or _hematopoietic_) stem cells in the bone marrow can give rise to red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets. However, blood-forming stem cells don’t generate liver or lung or brain cells, and stem cells in other tissues and organs don’t generate red or white blood cells or platelets.
> 
> Some tissues and organs within your body contain small caches of tissue-specific stem cells whose job it is to replace cells from that tissue that are lost in normal day-to-day living or in injury, such as those in your skin, blood, and the lining of your gut.
> 
> Tissue-specific stem cells can be difficult to find in the human body, and they don’t seem to self-renew in culture as easily as embryonic stem cells do. However, study of these cells has increased our general knowledge about normal development, what changes in aging, and what happens with injury and disease.
> Types of Stem Cells
> 
> 
> 
> Golly...well done!
Click to expand...


Made you look like an ignorant fucking moron, yeah go on and brag to all your friends about it.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

idb said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you are an ignorant fucking moron.
> 
> No I don't think your knowing your address is relevant, just another ignorant example by a small ignorant man.
> 
> 
> 
> So, how does knowing the difference between embryonic and tissue-specific stem cells make you more or less intelligent?
Click to expand...



Means I at least have a clue about the shit you are fucking telling moronic lies about .............

Too fucking stupid to understand, how fucking funny and pathetic.


----------



## Faun

idb said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
Click to expand...

He's such a dork.


----------



## idb

DrDoomNGloom said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead double down on the ignorant fucking retarded moron shit, stupid .....................
> 
> What do you think they are exchanging for cash, shit head??
Click to expand...

Postage.
Packaging.
And ripping those little bodies apart doesn't happen by itself you know...there must be a cost in the use of rippers, saws, grapplers and all the other necessary instruments.


----------



## Faun

DrDoomNGloom said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go ahead double down on the ignorant fucking retarded moron shit, stupid .....................
> 
> What do you think they are exchanging for cash, shit head??
Click to expand...

The cost of services.


----------



## idb

DrDoomNGloom said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you are an ignorant fucking moron.
> 
> No I don't think your knowing your address is relevant, just another ignorant example by a small ignorant man.
> 
> 
> 
> So, how does knowing the difference between embryonic and tissue-specific stem cells make you more or less intelligent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Means I at least have a clue about the shit you are fucking telling moronic lies about .............
> 
> Too fucking stupid to understand, how fucking funny and pathetic.
Click to expand...

What have I said that would be materially different if one type of tissue was being spoken of instead of another?
I thought they were all bits of baby.

Like I said...you're just feeling a little bit special because you've learnt something and you wanted to show it off.


----------



## idb

Faun said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's such a dork.
Click to expand...

I like him.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

DrDoomNGloom said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whoooa! I directed you to my post which clearly refutes this "baby killer for profit horseshit" and you responded to me that you  are not interested enough to look. THEN...you post this! There is something wrong with this picture! What is wrong with you?!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a post of yours in the quote you posted.
> 
> I will be glad to let you tell my your lies about why planned parenthood is not selling fetal organ tissue.
> 
> Where is that defense??
> 
> Let's get the party started, I will not repeat anything and the first to sling an ad hominem is the looser.
> 
> Whenever you get ready ball is in your court.
> 
> When asked a question, ignoring or refusing to answer that question will be a point against you.
> 
> Clean and fair if you are intelligent enough to make your points and refute mine.
> 
> No weasling, no hiding, first lie you are caught bold face in, you loose.
> 
> How big are your balls bitch??
Click to expand...


And who the fuck are you to  declare that these are what the rules will be, not to mention changing the subject and ignoring the actual issue which is, whatever they are doing with tissue IS NOT ILLEGAL or unethical and that the witch hunt against them is harming women and impeding research. Refute that bitch!


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Yep that gets you relegated to the cyber shithole of fucking morons guarded by the dreaded ignore button.

You are a fucking troll, an ignored fucking troll.


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whoooa! I directed you to my post which clearly refutes this "baby killer for profit horseshit" and you responded to me that you  are not interested enough to look. THEN...you post this! There is something wrong with this picture! What is wrong with you?!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a post of yours in the quote you posted.
> 
> I will be glad to let you tell my your lies about why planned parenthood is not selling fetal organ tissue.
> 
> Where is that defense??
> 
> Let's get the party started, I will not repeat anything and the first to sling an ad hominem is the looser.
> 
> Whenever you get ready ball is in your court.
> 
> When asked a question, ignoring or refusing to answer that question will be a point against you.
> 
> Clean and fair if you are intelligent enough to make your points and refute mine.
> 
> No weasling, no hiding, first lie you are caught bold face in, you loose.
> 
> How big are your balls bitch??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who the fuck are you to  declare that these are what the rules will be, not to mention changing the subject and ignoring the actual issue which is, whatever they are doing with tissue IS NOT ILLEGAL or unethical and that the witch hunt against them is harming women and impeding research. Refute that bitch!
Click to expand...

Look more baby killing lies.


----------



## koshergrl

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Yep that gets you relegated to the cyber shithole of fucking morons guarded by the dreaded ignore button.
> 
> You are a fucking troll, an ignored fucking troll.


Yup.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right I said that in last post. You then seem to subtract 3 months, and pull Sheri of of life support at your 27 week mark, of which she has an 80%, but why not keep her on it till fully recovered?
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?
> 
> Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) *IN* 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born *IN* 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
Click to expand...

27 week PREMIE has about an 80% of making it. Now numbers on miscarriages and such are difficult to give just one number, bc of factors like has the mother had a miscarriage before and etc.

But if you have different numbers then by all means post them and apply them to Sherri Tiavo, see if it's ok to kill her off. We can even do a poll on usmb see who thinks it's ok to for the husband to let her starve to death.  So far all you have done is try to split hairs on the numbers in this scenario, claim they're crazy, but not post why they're crazy. So be my guest. At least winter born could actually make intelligent arguments, I think I poked holes in those arguments, but they were based on intelligence, not splitting hairs on numbers without rebuttals


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?
> 
> Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) *IN* 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born *IN* 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?
> 
> 
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.
Click to expand...

Explain how this is the case arist 2 chat  . What am I saying that is wrong? Where are the holes in my demonstration of the inconsistency of the left?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

aris2chat said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.
Click to expand...



pre mature infants are usually born alive, what is confusing about that??

You seem to be trying to make a point, but your rambling statement is indicative you lack the proper English skills to convey that thought.


----------



## sakinago

idb said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
Click to expand...

They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part


----------



## Asclepias

sakinago said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
Click to expand...

So why is no one in jail?  You guys are not making sense.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to rehash the scientific and medical facts yet again in this post (or maybe it was another post, but who cares) when it is clear /you/ made up your mind on how it "should be" based upon /your personal/ beliefs.  Go hunt out my previous many many posts on this subject if you want to evidence any curiosity about what I base my beliefs on.
> 
> Bottom line is that my beliefs differ from yours and you are not automatically right because you say so.  Neither am I, which is why I said, change the law, don't lie about it.
> 
> The court happens to believe /my/ opinion is right at this time.  If they change that opinion then so be it, but they're sure as fuck not going to do so based on videos that they've already ruled were /lies/ - that would be why they fucking banned putting anymore out.
> 
> Welcome to America, where the majority and law rule, not /your/ feelings alone.  Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whoooa! I directed you to my post which clearly refutes this "baby killer for profit horseshit" and you responded to me that you  are not interested enough to look. THEN...you post this! There is something wrong with this picture! What is wrong with you?!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a post of yours in the quote you posted.
> 
> I will be glad to let you tell my your lies about why planned parenthood is not selling fetal organ tissue.
> 
> Where is that defense??
> 
> Let's get the party started, I will not repeat anything and the first to sling an ad hominem is the looser.
> 
> Whenever you get ready ball is in your court.
> 
> When asked a question, ignoring or refusing to answer that question will be a point against you.
> 
> Clean and fair if you are intelligent enough to make your points and refute mine.
> 
> No weasling, no hiding, first lie you are caught bold face in, you loose.
> 
> How big are your balls bitch??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who the fuck are you to  declare that these are what the rules will be, not to mention changing the subject and ignoring the actual issue which is, whatever they are doing with tissue IS NOT ILLEGAL or unethical and that the witch hunt against them is harming women and impeding research. Refute that bitch!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look more baby killing lies.
Click to expand...

Ben Carson Once Did Research On Fetal Brain Tissue - BuzzFeed News


----------



## sakinago

Haha The Nuremberg ethic laws are also impeding research. Let's get rid of those too!


----------



## sakinago

Asclepias said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why is no one in jail?  You guys are not making sense.
Click to expand...

Same reason Hilary is not in jail. Gen. Petreus got tried and convicted for leaking classified material, which is the lowest classification of secret material. Hilary has done so with TOP SECRET information, which is the highest, but I guess she's above the law.


----------



## Asclepias

sakinago said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why is no one in jail?  You guys are not making sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same reason Hilary is not in jail. Gen. Petreus got tried and convicted for leaking classified material, which is the lowest classification of secret material. Hilary has done so with TOP SECRET information, which is the highest, but I guess she's above the law.
Click to expand...

What reason is that if its the same?


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how this is the case arist 2 chat  . What am I saying that is wrong? Where are the holes in my demonstration of the inconsistency of the left?
Click to expand...

 It's a losing battle. That's why I put those ppl on ignore.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying baby killer....the majority despises PP and the abortion game, and the courts did not "rule" that the videos were lies.
> 
> Lying to protect the sacred right of infanticide and abuse of women. You are a stellar person indeed....
> 
> Further more, you aren't going to *rehash* the science and the fact because the science and the facts don't support the disgusting practice. Science and facts work against you, so I can understand your reluctance to *rehash* what never existed in the first place. At least not on your side.
> 
> 
> 
> Whoooa! I directed you to my post which clearly refutes this "baby killer for profit horseshit" and you responded to me that you  are not interested enough to look. THEN...you post this! There is something wrong with this picture! What is wrong with you?!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a post of yours in the quote you posted.
> 
> I will be glad to let you tell my your lies about why planned parenthood is not selling fetal organ tissue.
> 
> Where is that defense??
> 
> Let's get the party started, I will not repeat anything and the first to sling an ad hominem is the looser.
> 
> Whenever you get ready ball is in your court.
> 
> When asked a question, ignoring or refusing to answer that question will be a point against you.
> 
> Clean and fair if you are intelligent enough to make your points and refute mine.
> 
> No weasling, no hiding, first lie you are caught bold face in, you loose.
> 
> How big are your balls bitch??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who the fuck are you to  declare that these are what the rules will be, not to mention changing the subject and ignoring the actual issue which is, whatever they are doing with tissue IS NOT ILLEGAL or unethical and that the witch hunt against them is harming women and impeding research. Refute that bitch!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look more baby killing lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben Carson Once Did Research On Fetal Brain Tissue - BuzzFeed News
Click to expand...

 
You conflate the issues.

Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.

What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.


----------



## paddymurphy

sakinago said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why is no one in jail?  You guys are not making sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same reason Hilary is not in jail. Gen. Petreus got tried and convicted for leaking classified material, which is the lowest classification of secret material. Hilary has done so with TOP SECRET information, which is the highest, but I guess she's above the law.
Click to expand...

She was not even accused of leaking ANY information.  Her private e-mail server was secured.  There is no allegation that any of that information went any where else.  Stop making shit up.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoooa! I directed you to my post which clearly refutes this "baby killer for profit horseshit" and you responded to me that you  are not interested enough to look. THEN...you post this! There is something wrong with this picture! What is wrong with you?!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a post of yours in the quote you posted.
> 
> I will be glad to let you tell my your lies about why planned parenthood is not selling fetal organ tissue.
> 
> Where is that defense??
> 
> Let's get the party started, I will not repeat anything and the first to sling an ad hominem is the looser.
> 
> Whenever you get ready ball is in your court.
> 
> When asked a question, ignoring or refusing to answer that question will be a point against you.
> 
> Clean and fair if you are intelligent enough to make your points and refute mine.
> 
> No weasling, no hiding, first lie you are caught bold face in, you loose.
> 
> How big are your balls bitch??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who the fuck are you to  declare that these are what the rules will be, not to mention changing the subject and ignoring the actual issue which is, whatever they are doing with tissue IS NOT ILLEGAL or unethical and that the witch hunt against them is harming women and impeding research. Refute that bitch!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look more baby killing lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben Carson Once Did Research On Fetal Brain Tissue - BuzzFeed News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You conflate the issues.
> 
> Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
> 
> What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
Click to expand...

It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue.  But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue?  The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?


----------



## Asclepias

paddymurphy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why is no one in jail?  You guys are not making sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same reason Hilary is not in jail. Gen. Petreus got tried and convicted for leaking classified material, which is the lowest classification of secret material. Hilary has done so with TOP SECRET information, which is the highest, but I guess she's above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was not even accused of leaking ANY information.  Her private e-mail server was secured.  There is no allegation that any of that information went any where else.  Stop making shit up.
Click to expand...

Lets see if he answers my question. I'm guessing about right now his brain is short circuiting.


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how this is the case arist 2 chat  . What am I saying that is wrong? Where are the holes in my demonstration of the inconsistency of the left?
Click to expand...


Your statistics were for the change of a live birth at each month in gestation to birth.  It is not about the change of premature babies to survive.
The longer the gestation the better change the fetus will go to full term.
The chance of a premy to survive after birth is not just by age, but other factors as well.  Until they are full term, lungs, heart, kidneys, brain are all under developed and the bones are too soft...........


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
Click to expand...



they can't function as they are under developed.
As for the 'liver' that was begun ten years ago in the Neatherlands.  Now they use the cells to treat hemophilia by matching the cells up with the persons DNA to create a clotting agent.  The liver after all is what purifies the blood.  Mouse liver were not as effective.  When possible, staying within the species is preferable for a body match.  When no possible other animals are used for transplants and testing, but eventually human trials have to begin.

Would you rather have a pig heart, or a human heart that was donated?

Would you rather have baboon blood or human blood?

The fetal cell are so immature they can be programed with the person's DNA to get match.  They can't transplant the fetal liver as it is far too small and the programming is not complete as to what type of cell it should be yet.  It is still learning it is supposed to be a liver cell before the fetus is born.

It is like a lump of clay, it has to be molded and shaped before it become a work of art.  It takes time.  It does not become a work of art when it is first thrown.  The cells are the same way, they are still learning what they are.  That is why they can be so easily match/programed for someone's DNA


----------



## aris2chat

DrDoomNGloom said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> pre mature infants are usually born alive, what is confusing about that??
> 
> You seem to be trying to make a point, but your rambling statement is indicative you lack the proper English skills to convey that thought.
Click to expand...



One is chance of being born alive and the other is the chance of a premy to survive


----------



## sakinago

Asclepias said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> 
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why is no one in jail?  You guys are not making sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same reason Hilary is not in jail. Gen. Petreus got tried and convicted for leaking classified material, which is the lowest classification of secret material. Hilary has done so with TOP SECRET information, which is the highest, but I guess she's above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was not even accused of leaking ANY information.  Her private e-mail server was secured.  There is no allegation that any of that information went any where else.  Stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets see if he answers my question. I'm guessing about right now his brain is short circuiting.
Click to expand...

Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they can't function as they are under developed.
> As for the 'liver' that was begun ten years ago in the Neatherlands.  Now they use the cells to treat hemophilia by matching the cells up with the persons DNA to create a clotting agent.  The liver after all is what purifies the blood.  Mouse liver were not as effective.  When possible, staying within the species is preferable for a body match.  When no possible other animals are used for transplants and testing, but eventually human trials have to begin.
> 
> Would you rather have a pig heart, or a human heart that was donated?
> 
> Would you rather have baboon blood or human blood?
> 
> The fetal cell are so immature they can be programed with the person's DNA to get match.  They can't transplant the fetal liver as it is far too small and the programming is not complete as to what type of cell it should be yet.  It is still learning it is supposed to be a liver cell before the fetus is born.
> 
> It is like a lump of clay, it has to be molded and shaped before it become a work of art.  It takes time.  It does not become a work of art when it is first thrown.  The cells are the same way, they are still learning what they are.  That is why they can be so easily match/programed for someone's DNA
Click to expand...



Why do folks that are ignorant in medicine come in and spout Bull Shit??

So ever heard of Ionescu-Shiley heart valves??

Bovine or Porcine, pick your flavor, seems to have made this company millions.

There is no widely accepted "blood substitute" , it's primary function is to carry oxygen and no you can not use others species blood in humans.

Those fetal cells, that can be programmed, are those "embryonic" or "fetal"??

That fetal liver can not be grown larger in the lab??

So not possible to transplant a fetal tissue liver into a human, you do realize the article that follows will pretty much end your moronic stance.

[Snip]
*Fetal liver transplants.*
Gale RP1.
*Author information*
*Abstract*
Transplants of hematopoietic stem cells derived from fetal liver during the second trimester of pregnancy can restore hematopoiesis in animals and humans with bone marrow failure. These cells also have a reduced likelihood of causing graft-versus-host disease. Because fetal liver derived hematopoietic stem cells are relatively pure and considerable proliferative potential, they may be reasonable targets for studies of gene modification. Other possible uses of fetal liver derived stem cells are also considered as are results of fetal liver transplants in animals and humans. These data are compared to alternative sources of hematopoietic stem cells including bone marrow and umbilical cord and adult blood.

Fetal liver transplants. - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## Asclepias

sakinago said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> 
> 
> So why is no one in jail?  You guys are not making sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same reason Hilary is not in jail. Gen. Petreus got tried and convicted for leaking classified material, which is the lowest classification of secret material. Hilary has done so with TOP SECRET information, which is the highest, but I guess she's above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was not even accused of leaking ANY information.  Her private e-mail server was secured.  There is no allegation that any of that information went any where else.  Stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets see if he answers my question. I'm guessing about right now his brain is short circuiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
Click to expand...

So you admit all you have is a conspiracy theory?  Thanks. I rest my case.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

*Whole fetal liver transplantation--a new approach to cell therapy.*
Oren R1, Breitman Y, Gur E, Traister A, Zvibel I, Brazovsky E, Shafritz DA, Halpern Z.
*Author information*
*Abstract*
We recently developed a novel rat model for liver repopulation, heterografting of microliver slices, aimed at overcoming the limitations inherent in both whole liver and hepatocyte transplantations. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the potential of whole fetal liver transplantations to survive and differentiate within the adult liver, using the adult liver slice transplantation model. Embryonic day 14 whole fetal livers from dipeptidyl peptidase IV+/+ wild-type Fischer 344 rats were transplanted into the livers of dipeptidyl peptidase IV-/- mutant rats. Adult hepatic markers, dipeptidyl peptidase IV, albumin, glycogen, and proliferation cell nuclear antigen- proliferation cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) were assessed in the transplanted liver tissue by immunohistochemistry. Two groups of 9 rats each were transplanted with 3 fetal livers per recipient. Two months later the rats were sacrificed and the markers were detected in the transplanted tissues. In conclusion, the results of this study raise the possibility that fetal liver transplantation could serve as a model for genetic metabolic liver diseases.


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> 
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how this is the case arist 2 chat  . What am I saying that is wrong? Where are the holes in my demonstration of the inconsistency of the left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statistics were for the change of a live birth at each month in gestation to birth.  It is not about the change of premature babies to survive.
> The longer the gestation the better change the fetus will go to full term.
> The chance of a premy to survive after birth is not just by age, but other factors as well.  Until they are full term, lungs, heart, kidneys, brain are all under developed and the bones are too soft...........
Click to expand...

Ha no, it has very little to do with numbers. arist 2 chat, if a dr looking over schaivo says "she's getting better everyday, and will make a full recovery in 4 or so months on life support, slight chance she won't make it, but she'll be back to normal just give it time" ... Is it still ok for the husband to pull her off life support?


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

aris2chat said:


> One is chance of being born alive and the other is the chance of a premy to survive



What is the relevance of either premies or babies to a conversation about planned parenthood and selling of body parts??

Your off topic post with no content are going to start being reported.


----------



## Asclepias

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how this is the case arist 2 chat  . What am I saying that is wrong? Where are the holes in my demonstration of the inconsistency of the left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statistics were for the change of a live birth at each month in gestation to birth.  It is not about the change of premature babies to survive.
> The longer the gestation the better change the fetus will go to full term.
> The chance of a premy to survive after birth is not just by age, but other factors as well.  Until they are full term, lungs, heart, kidneys, brain are all under developed and the bones are too soft...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha no, it has very little to do with numbers. arist 2 chat, if a dr looking over schaivo says "she's getting better everyday, and will make a full recovery in 4 or so months on life support, slight chance she won't make it, but she'll be back to normal just give it time" ... Is it still ok for the husband to pull her off life support?
Click to expand...

You do realize the wife is not a fetus or a premie dont you?


----------



## paddymurphy

sakinago said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> 
> 
> So why is no one in jail?  You guys are not making sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same reason Hilary is not in jail. Gen. Petreus got tried and convicted for leaking classified material, which is the lowest classification of secret material. Hilary has done so with TOP SECRET information, which is the highest, but I guess she's above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was not even accused of leaking ANY information.  Her private e-mail server was secured.  There is no allegation that any of that information went any where else.  Stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets see if he answers my question. I'm guessing about right now his brain is short circuiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
Click to expand...

The IRS did not admit to targeting any conservatives groups in the manner that Nixon did.  Nixon demanded that groups on his enemy list be audited or subject to other unusual scrutiny.  All that has been established is that the IRS, in vetting the huge influx of applications for tax exempt political groups following the Citizen's United decision, used certain phrases associated with conservative politics to try to find out if they were truly non-partisan.  They did not harass any such groups; did not subject them to audits or take any enforcement actions.  More importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the White House gave a rat's ass about all of the Tea party groups popping up or gave any instruction to the IRS to do anything.


----------



## Asclepias

paddymurphy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is no one in jail?  You guys are not making sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason Hilary is not in jail. Gen. Petreus got tried and convicted for leaking classified material, which is the lowest classification of secret material. Hilary has done so with TOP SECRET information, which is the highest, but I guess she's above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was not even accused of leaking ANY information.  Her private e-mail server was secured.  There is no allegation that any of that information went any where else.  Stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets see if he answers my question. I'm guessing about right now his brain is short circuiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The IRS did not admit to targeting any conservatives groups in the manner that Nixon did.  Nixon demanded that groups on his enemy list be audited or subject to other unusual scrutiny.  All that has been established is that the IRS, in vetting the huge influx of applications for tax exempt political groups following the Citizen's United decision, used certain phrases associated with conservative politics to try to find out if they were truly non-partisan.  They did not harass any such groups; did not subject them to audits or take any enforcement actions.  More importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the White House gave a rat's ass about all of the Tea party groups popping up or gave any instruction to the IRS to do anything.
Click to expand...

You cant convince people that believe in conspiracies to actually look at the facts.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see a post of yours in the quote you posted.
> 
> I will be glad to let you tell my your lies about why planned parenthood is not selling fetal organ tissue.
> 
> Where is that defense??
> 
> Let's get the party started, I will not repeat anything and the first to sling an ad hominem is the looser.
> 
> Whenever you get ready ball is in your court.
> 
> When asked a question, ignoring or refusing to answer that question will be a point against you.
> 
> Clean and fair if you are intelligent enough to make your points and refute mine.
> 
> No weasling, no hiding, first lie you are caught bold face in, you loose.
> 
> How big are your balls bitch??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who the fuck are you to  declare that these are what the rules will be, not to mention changing the subject and ignoring the actual issue which is, whatever they are doing with tissue IS NOT ILLEGAL or unethical and that the witch hunt against them is harming women and impeding research. Refute that bitch!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look more baby killing lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben Carson Once Did Research On Fetal Brain Tissue - BuzzFeed News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You conflate the issues.
> 
> Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
> 
> What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue.  But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue?  The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?
Click to expand...

Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?


----------



## sakinago

Asclepias said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is no one in jail?  You guys are not making sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason Hilary is not in jail. Gen. Petreus got tried and convicted for leaking classified material, which is the lowest classification of secret material. Hilary has done so with TOP SECRET information, which is the highest, but I guess she's above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was not even accused of leaking ANY information.  Her private e-mail server was secured.  There is no allegation that any of that information went any where else.  Stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets see if he answers my question. I'm guessing about right now his brain is short circuiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit all you have is a conspiracy theory?  Thanks. I rest my case.
Click to expand...

What About the IRS is conspiracy


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who the fuck are you to  declare that these are what the rules will be, not to mention changing the subject and ignoring the actual issue which is, whatever they are doing with tissue IS NOT ILLEGAL or unethical and that the witch hunt against them is harming women and impeding research. Refute that bitch!
> 
> 
> 
> Look more baby killing lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben Carson Once Did Research On Fetal Brain Tissue - BuzzFeed News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You conflate the issues.
> 
> Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
> 
> What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue.  But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue?  The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?
Click to expand...

No, there is not.  There is none.  There are videotapes which, when edited and when viewed by fucking morons like you, seem to say that. When the unedited tapes are seen, all that is being discussed is the cost of providing the fetal tissue.


----------



## Asclepias

sakinago said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason Hilary is not in jail. Gen. Petreus got tried and convicted for leaking classified material, which is the lowest classification of secret material. Hilary has done so with TOP SECRET information, which is the highest, but I guess she's above the law.
> 
> 
> 
> She was not even accused of leaking ANY information.  Her private e-mail server was secured.  There is no allegation that any of that information went any where else.  Stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets see if he answers my question. I'm guessing about right now his brain is short circuiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit all you have is a conspiracy theory?  Thanks. I rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What About the IRS is conspiracy
Click to expand...

Your claim.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look more baby killing lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Carson Once Did Research On Fetal Brain Tissue - BuzzFeed News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You conflate the issues.
> 
> Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
> 
> What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue.  But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue?  The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, there is not.  There is none.  There are videotapes which, when edited and when viewed by fucking morons like you, seem to say that. When the unedited tapes are seen, all that is being discussed is the cost of providing the fetal tissue.
Click to expand...

 
Liar. It's the old "Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?" thing. Shut the fuck up. You're a body scout, aren't you? Do you get a higher "find" commission when you bring in women who are 9 months preggo? I know they get more for the bigger *bits* after all. No conflict there....


----------



## sakinago

paddymurphy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is no one in jail?  You guys are not making sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason Hilary is not in jail. Gen. Petreus got tried and convicted for leaking classified material, which is the lowest classification of secret material. Hilary has done so with TOP SECRET information, which is the highest, but I guess she's above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was not even accused of leaking ANY information.  Her private e-mail server was secured.  There is no allegation that any of that information went any where else.  Stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets see if he answers my question. I'm guessing about right now his brain is short circuiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The IRS did not admit to targeting any conservatives groups in the manner that Nixon did.  Nixon demanded that groups on his enemy list be audited or subject to other unusual scrutiny.  All that has been established is that the IRS, in vetting the huge influx of applications for tax exempt political groups following the Citizen's United decision, used certain phrases associated with conservative politics to try to find out if they were truly non-partisan.  They did not harass any such groups; did not subject them to audits or take any enforcement actions.  More importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the White House gave a rat's ass about all of the Tea party groups popping up or gave any instruction to the IRS to do anything.
Click to expand...

But yet only 3 conservative groups got approved from Lois  learner over like 2 years


----------



## sakinago

Asclepias said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how this is the case arist 2 chat  . What am I saying that is wrong? Where are the holes in my demonstration of the inconsistency of the left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statistics were for the change of a live birth at each month in gestation to birth.  It is not about the change of premature babies to survive.
> The longer the gestation the better change the fetus will go to full term.
> The chance of a premy to survive after birth is not just by age, but other factors as well.  Until they are full term, lungs, heart, kidneys, brain are all under developed and the bones are too soft...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha no, it has very little to do with numbers. arist 2 chat, if a dr looking over schaivo says "she's getting better everyday, and will make a full recovery in 4 or so months on life support, slight chance she won't make it, but she'll be back to normal just give it time" ... Is it still ok for the husband to pull her off life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize the wife is not a fetus or a premie dont you?
Click to expand...

Yes I do, you do realize you can answer the question


----------



## koshergrl




----------



## Skylar

sakinago said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason Hilary is not in jail. Gen. Petreus got tried and convicted for leaking classified material, which is the lowest classification of secret material. Hilary has done so with TOP SECRET information, which is the highest, but I guess she's above the law.
> 
> 
> 
> She was not even accused of leaking ANY information.  Her private e-mail server was secured.  There is no allegation that any of that information went any where else.  Stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets see if he answers my question. I'm guessing about right now his brain is short circuiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The IRS did not admit to targeting any conservatives groups in the manner that Nixon did.  Nixon demanded that groups on his enemy list be audited or subject to other unusual scrutiny.  All that has been established is that the IRS, in vetting the huge influx of applications for tax exempt political groups following the Citizen's United decision, used certain phrases associated with conservative politics to try to find out if they were truly non-partisan.  They did not harass any such groups; did not subject them to audits or take any enforcement actions.  More importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the White House gave a rat's ass about all of the Tea party groups popping up or gave any instruction to the IRS to do anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But yet only 3 conservative groups got approved from Lois  learner over like 2 years
Click to expand...


Which 2 years.


----------



## Asclepias

sakinago said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how this is the case arist 2 chat  . What am I saying that is wrong? Where are the holes in my demonstration of the inconsistency of the left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your statistics were for the change of a live birth at each month in gestation to birth.  It is not about the change of premature babies to survive.
> The longer the gestation the better change the fetus will go to full term.
> The chance of a premy to survive after birth is not just by age, but other factors as well.  Until they are full term, lungs, heart, kidneys, brain are all under developed and the bones are too soft...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha no, it has very little to do with numbers. arist 2 chat, if a dr looking over schaivo says "she's getting better everyday, and will make a full recovery in 4 or so months on life support, slight chance she won't make it, but she'll be back to normal just give it time" ... Is it still ok for the husband to pull her off life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize the wife is not a fetus or a premie dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I do, you do realize you can answer the question
Click to expand...

If you answer mine I will answer yours.


----------



## koshergrl

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who the fuck are you to  declare that these are what the rules will be, not to mention changing the subject and ignoring the actual issue which is, whatever they are doing with tissue IS NOT ILLEGAL or unethical and that the witch hunt against them is harming women and impeding research. Refute that bitch!
> 
> 
> 
> Look more baby killing lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben Carson Once Did Research On Fetal Brain Tissue - BuzzFeed News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You conflate the issues.
> 
> Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
> 
> What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue.  But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue?  The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?
Click to expand...

 
 
Third Video Shows Planned Parenthood Director Standing Over Dead Fetuses Discussing Prices - YouTube


----------



## koshergrl




----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look more baby killing lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Carson Once Did Research On Fetal Brain Tissue - BuzzFeed News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You conflate the issues.
> 
> Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
> 
> What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue.  But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue?  The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Third Video Shows Planned Parenthood Director Standing Over Dead Fetuses Discussing Prices - YouTube
Click to expand...

Shove your edited, misleading videotapes up your ass.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Carson Once Did Research On Fetal Brain Tissue - BuzzFeed News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You conflate the issues.
> 
> Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
> 
> What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue.  But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue?  The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, there is not.  There is none.  There are videotapes which, when edited and when viewed by fucking morons like you, seem to say that. When the unedited tapes are seen, all that is being discussed is the cost of providing the fetal tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar. It's the old "Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?" thing. Shut the fuck up. You're a body scout, aren't you? Do you get a higher "find" commission when you bring in women who are 9 months preggo? I know they get more for the bigger *bits* after all. No conflict there....
Click to expand...

You are severely mentally disturbed.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Carson Once Did Research On Fetal Brain Tissue - BuzzFeed News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You conflate the issues.
> 
> Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
> 
> What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue.  But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue?  The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Third Video Shows Planned Parenthood Director Standing Over Dead Fetuses Discussing Prices - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shove your edited, misleading videotapes up your ass.
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

THIS is "highly edited"...


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You conflate the issues.
> 
> Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
> 
> What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue.  But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue?  The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, there is not.  There is none.  There are videotapes which, when edited and when viewed by fucking morons like you, seem to say that. When the unedited tapes are seen, all that is being discussed is the cost of providing the fetal tissue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar. It's the old "Are you going to believe me, or what you see with your own eyes?" thing. Shut the fuck up. You're a body scout, aren't you? Do you get a higher "find" commission when you bring in women who are 9 months preggo? I know they get more for the bigger *bits* after all. No conflict there....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are severely mentally disturbed.
Click to expand...

 Says the person who lies to protect the harvest and sale of dead babies.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

So you have a copy of them before they were edited??

You say they are edited, if you have not seen the originals with your own eyes how do you know??

Even if there is some editing how do you justify morally anything we have seen.

This editing, what would it have changed??

I mean it seems to be the crux of your assertion, that they are edited.

So tell us all, how and for what reason??


----------



## koshergrl

PM is just perpetuating a lie that not even the PP people are bothering to assert. Everybody knows and accepts that the unedited version of the videos shows exactly what the edited (shortened) versions show. There is no acceptable context for "I don't want to lowball the price" when speaking of dead babies. There is no acceptable context for "I want a Lamborgini snicker" when it comes immediately after "I don't want to lowball". There is no acceptable context for discussions about altering the procedure in order to procure specimens INTACT (and thus worth more) and how to best hide what you are doing, which you acknowledge is against the law.

The ghouls that defend baby harvest and the abuse of women in abortion clinic know this...and that's why they're baldfaced lying about the contents of the videos. THEY DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THOSE PRACTICES. They are okay with people breaking the law to commit those crimes. They want more people to be killed via abortion. They want more women assaulted and killed in abortion clinics.


----------



## sakinago

Skylar said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was not even accused of leaking ANY information.  Her private e-mail server was secured.  There is no allegation that any of that information went any where else.  Stop making shit up.
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if he answers my question. I'm guessing about right now his brain is short circuiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The IRS did not admit to targeting any conservatives groups in the manner that Nixon did.  Nixon demanded that groups on his enemy list be audited or subject to other unusual scrutiny.  All that has been established is that the IRS, in vetting the huge influx of applications for tax exempt political groups following the Citizen's United decision, used certain phrases associated with conservative politics to try to find out if they were truly non-partisan.  They did not harass any such groups; did not subject them to audits or take any enforcement actions.  More importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the White House gave a rat's ass about all of the Tea party groups popping up or gave any instruction to the IRS to do anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But yet only 3 conservative groups got approved from Lois  learner over like 2 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which 2 years.
Click to expand...

DEFINITE BIAS Only ONE conservative group granted tax-exemption under Lois Lerner - Politics Policy - News - Catholic Online


----------



## EverCurious

koshergrl said:


>





koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You conflate the issues.
> 
> Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
> 
> What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue.  But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue?  The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Third Video Shows Planned Parenthood Director Standing Over Dead Fetuses Discussing Prices - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shove your edited, misleading videotapes up your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.


----------



## koshergrl

EverCurious said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue.  But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue?  The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Third Video Shows Planned Parenthood Director Standing Over Dead Fetuses Discussing Prices - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shove your edited, misleading videotapes up your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.
Click to expand...

 
No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you fucking idiot.


----------



## sakinago

Asclepias said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how this is the case arist 2 chat  . What am I saying that is wrong? Where are the holes in my demonstration of the inconsistency of the left?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your statistics were for the change of a live birth at each month in gestation to birth.  It is not about the change of premature babies to survive.
> The longer the gestation the better change the fetus will go to full term.
> The chance of a premy to survive after birth is not just by age, but other factors as well.  Until they are full term, lungs, heart, kidneys, brain are all under developed and the bones are too soft...........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha no, it has very little to do with numbers. arist 2 chat, if a dr looking over schaivo says "she's getting better everyday, and will make a full recovery in 4 or so months on life support, slight chance she won't make it, but she'll be back to normal just give it time" ... Is it still ok for the husband to pull her off life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize the wife is not a fetus or a premie dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I do, you do realize you can answer the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you answer mine I will answer yours.
Click to expand...

Not sure what your question is, but I've never seen more people dodge a question on usmb than right now


----------



## paddymurphy

sakinago said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if he answers my question. I'm guessing about right now his brain is short circuiting.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The IRS did not admit to targeting any conservatives groups in the manner that Nixon did.  Nixon demanded that groups on his enemy list be audited or subject to other unusual scrutiny.  All that has been established is that the IRS, in vetting the huge influx of applications for tax exempt political groups following the Citizen's United decision, used certain phrases associated with conservative politics to try to find out if they were truly non-partisan.  They did not harass any such groups; did not subject them to audits or take any enforcement actions.  More importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the White House gave a rat's ass about all of the Tea party groups popping up or gave any instruction to the IRS to do anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But yet only 3 conservative groups got approved from Lois  learner over like 2 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which 2 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DEFINITE BIAS Only ONE conservative group granted tax-exemption under Lois Lerner - Politics Policy - News - Catholic Online
Click to expand...

Not fucking lies. You clowns are tiresome.


----------



## paddymurphy

sakinago said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets see if he answers my question. I'm guessing about right now his brain is short circuiting.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The IRS did not admit to targeting any conservatives groups in the manner that Nixon did.  Nixon demanded that groups on his enemy list be audited or subject to other unusual scrutiny.  All that has been established is that the IRS, in vetting the huge influx of applications for tax exempt political groups following the Citizen's United decision, used certain phrases associated with conservative politics to try to find out if they were truly non-partisan.  They did not harass any such groups; did not subject them to audits or take any enforcement actions.  More importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the White House gave a rat's ass about all of the Tea party groups popping up or gave any instruction to the IRS to do anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But yet only 3 conservative groups got approved from Lois  learner over like 2 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which 2 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DEFINITE BIAS Only ONE conservative group granted tax-exemption under Lois Lerner - Politics Policy - News - Catholic Online
Click to expand...

More lies. You are tiresome.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> PM is just perpetuating a lie that not even the PP people are bothering to assert. Everybody knows and accepts that the unedited version of the videos shows exactly what the edited (shortened) versions show. There is no acceptable context for "I don't want to lowball the price" when speaking of dead babies. There is no acceptable context for "I want a Lamborgini snicker" when it comes immediately after "I don't want to lowball". There is no acceptable context for discussions about altering the procedure in order to procure specimens INTACT (and thus worth more) and how to best hide what you are doing, which you acknowledge is against the law.
> 
> The ghouls that defend baby harvest and the abuse of women in abortion clinic know this...and that's why they're baldfaced lying about the contents of the videos. THEY DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THOSE PRACTICES. They are okay with people breaking the law to commit those crimes. They want more people to be killed via abortion. They want more women assaulted and killed in abortion clinics.


Cant convince the nation to outlaw abortion so you pricks lie.


----------



## Asclepias

sakinago said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your statistics were for the change of a live birth at each month in gestation to birth.  It is not about the change of premature babies to survive.
> The longer the gestation the better change the fetus will go to full term.
> The chance of a premy to survive after birth is not just by age, but other factors as well.  Until they are full term, lungs, heart, kidneys, brain are all under developed and the bones are too soft...........
> 
> 
> 
> Ha no, it has very little to do with numbers. arist 2 chat, if a dr looking over schaivo says "she's getting better everyday, and will make a full recovery in 4 or so months on life support, slight chance she won't make it, but she'll be back to normal just give it time" ... Is it still ok for the husband to pull her off life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize the wife is not a fetus or a premie dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I do, you do realize you can answer the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you answer mine I will answer yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what your question is, but I've never seen more people dodge a question on usmb than right now
Click to expand...

If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........

 "What reason is that if its the same?"


----------



## paddymurphy

DrDoomNGloom said:


> So you have a copy of them before they were edited??
> 
> You say they are edited, if you have not seen the originals with your own eyes how do you know??
> 
> Even if there is some editing how do you justify morally anything we have seen.
> 
> This editing, what would it have changed??
> 
> I mean it seems to be the crux of your assertion, that they are edited.
> 
> So tell us all, how and for what reason??


They were edited so assholes like you would use them in your ear on reproductive freedom.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> PM is just perpetuating a lie that not even the PP people are bothering to assert. Everybody knows and accepts that the unedited version of the videos shows exactly what the edited (shortened) versions show. There is no acceptable context for "I don't want to lowball the price" when speaking of dead babies. There is no acceptable context for "I want a Lamborgini snicker" when it comes immediately after "I don't want to lowball". There is no acceptable context for discussions about altering the procedure in order to procure specimens INTACT (and thus worth more) and how to best hide what you are doing, which you acknowledge is against the law.
> 
> The ghouls that defend baby harvest and the abuse of women in abortion clinic know this...and that's why they're baldfaced lying about the contents of the videos. THEY DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THOSE PRACTICES. They are okay with people breaking the law to commit those crimes. They want more people to be killed via abortion. They want more women assaulted and killed in abortion clinics.
> 
> 
> 
> Cant convince the nation to outlaw abortion so you pricks lie.
Click to expand...

 
That is in fact a lie. The nation abhors abortion, and has never voted to make it legal.

 That's why liars had to engage the SCOTUS to legislate from the bench.

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling "heavy-handed judicial activism." Laurence Tribe wrote "behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Former Harry Blackmun clerk Edward Lazarus wrote "[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible."

The pervading dishonesty of Roe v. Wade Washington Examiner


----------



## Asclepias

DrDoomNGloom said:


> So you have a copy of them before they were edited??
> 
> You say they are edited, if you have not seen the originals with your own eyes how do you know??
> 
> Even if there is some editing how do you justify morally anything we have seen.
> 
> This editing, what would it have changed??
> 
> I mean it seems to be the crux of your assertion, that they are edited.
> 
> So tell us all, how and for what reason??


You cant have it both ways. If you are claiming that PP broke some law why are they not in prison?  If you are claiming a conspiracy then you must have some proof. Where is it?


----------



## Asclepias

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> PM is just perpetuating a lie that not even the PP people are bothering to assert. Everybody knows and accepts that the unedited version of the videos shows exactly what the edited (shortened) versions show. There is no acceptable context for "I don't want to lowball the price" when speaking of dead babies. There is no acceptable context for "I want a Lamborgini snicker" when it comes immediately after "I don't want to lowball". There is no acceptable context for discussions about altering the procedure in order to procure specimens INTACT (and thus worth more) and how to best hide what you are doing, which you acknowledge is against the law.
> 
> The ghouls that defend baby harvest and the abuse of women in abortion clinic know this...and that's why they're baldfaced lying about the contents of the videos. THEY DON'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THOSE PRACTICES. They are okay with people breaking the law to commit those crimes. They want more people to be killed via abortion. They want more women assaulted and killed in abortion clinics.
> 
> 
> 
> Cant convince the nation to outlaw abortion so you pricks lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is in fact a lie. The nation abhors abortion, and has never voted to make it legal.
> 
> That's why liars had to engage the SCOTUS to legislate from the bench.
> 
> "Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling "heavy-handed judicial activism." Laurence Tribe wrote "behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Former Harry Blackmun clerk Edward Lazarus wrote "[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible."
> 
> The pervading dishonesty of Roe v. Wade Washington Examiner
Click to expand...


What fertilizer do you grow your strawmen with?


----------



## sakinago

paddymurphy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
> 
> 
> 
> The IRS did not admit to targeting any conservatives groups in the manner that Nixon did.  Nixon demanded that groups on his enemy list be audited or subject to other unusual scrutiny.  All that has been established is that the IRS, in vetting the huge influx of applications for tax exempt political groups following the Citizen's United decision, used certain phrases associated with conservative politics to try to find out if they were truly non-partisan.  They did not harass any such groups; did not subject them to audits or take any enforcement actions.  More importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the White House gave a rat's ass about all of the Tea party groups popping up or gave any instruction to the IRS to do anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But yet only 3 conservative groups got approved from Lois  learner over like 2 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which 2 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DEFINITE BIAS Only ONE conservative group granted tax-exemption under Lois Lerner - Politics Policy - News - Catholic Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More lies. You are tiresome.[/
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha no, it has very little to do with numbers. arist 2 chat, if a dr looking over schaivo says "she's getting better everyday, and will make a full recovery in 4 or so months on life support, slight chance she won't make it, but she'll be back to normal just give it time" ... Is it still ok for the husband to pull her off life support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize the wife is not a fetus or a premie dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I do, you do realize you can answer the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you answer mine I will answer yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what your question is, but I've never seen more people dodge a question on usmb than right now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........
> 
> "What reason is that if its the same?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry you have just joined the conversation now but I have always been saying that if that is how you feel about abortion, then yea go ahed and donate the tissue. But if you don't feel that way, than this is a very black eye on our society. America has felt very right about things we have done in the past; slavery, Jim Crow, manifest destiny, interment camps... Are we that daft to think we are any better than those that came before?
> 
> So on to my question
Click to expand...


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Asclepias said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have a copy of them before they were edited??
> 
> You say they are edited, if you have not seen the originals with your own eyes how do you know??
> 
> Even if there is some editing how do you justify morally anything we have seen.
> 
> This editing, what would it have changed??
> 
> I mean it seems to be the crux of your assertion, that they are edited.
> 
> So tell us all, how and for what reason??
> 
> 
> 
> You cant have it both ways. If you are claiming that PP broke some law why are they not in prison?  If you are claiming a conspiracy then you must have some proof. Where is it?
Click to expand...



Another Obama / democratic / left failure to follow the law and enforce it as per SOP.


----------



## Asclepias

sakinago said:


> sorry you have just joined the conversation now but I have always been saying that if that is how you feel about abortion, then yea go ahed and donate the tissue. But if you don't feel that way, than this is a very black eye on our society. America has felt very right about things we have done in the past; slavery, Jim Crow, manifest destiny, interment camps... Are we that daft to think we are any better than those that came before?
> 
> So on to my question



What did your response have to do with my question? Let me dumb it down for you. Why have they not put Hilary and someone from PP in prison for their deeds?


----------



## Asclepias

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have a copy of them before they were edited??
> 
> You say they are edited, if you have not seen the originals with your own eyes how do you know??
> 
> Even if there is some editing how do you justify morally anything we have seen.
> 
> This editing, what would it have changed??
> 
> I mean it seems to be the crux of your assertion, that they are edited.
> 
> So tell us all, how and for what reason??
> 
> 
> 
> You cant have it both ways. If you are claiming that PP broke some law why are they not in prison?  If you are claiming a conspiracy then you must have some proof. Where is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another Obama / democratic / left failure to follow the law and enforce it as per SOP.
Click to expand...

There are more Reps in congress. Why are they sleeping on the job?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Some of you anti choice folks might want to tune into Glen Back :

*Beck: Planned Parenthood Videos Are 'A Blessing From God'* Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Thursday, 8/13/2015 1:28

Discussing the power of prayer with David Barton on his television program last night, Glenn Beck declared that the deceptive video campaign to smear Planned Parenthood as illegally "selling aborted baby parts" is "a blessing from God." "I'm really being humbled here," Beck said. "I'm regretting that I haven't gotten down on my knees and thanked the Lord for the people that have brought us these Planned Parenthood videos. We, as a nation, should be giving God thanks ... That is a blessing from God and I haven't thanked him for that." - See more at: Beck Planned Parenthood Videos Are A Blessing From God Right Wing Watch


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Mark Crutcher, whose Life Dynamics organization was a ground-breaker in investigating the abortion behemoth that gets some $500 million annually from U.S. taxpayers, worked on that investigation.

His group reported in February 2000 how the baby parts market works: "A baby parts 'wholesaler' enters into a financial agreement with an abortion clinic in which the wholesaler pays a monthly 'site fee' to the clinic. For this payment, the wholesaler is allowed to place a retrieval agent inside the clinic where he or she is given access to the corpses of children killed there and a workspace to harvest their parts."

He continued: "The buyer – usually a researcher working for a medical school, pharmaceutical company, bio-tech company or government agency – supplies the wholesaler with a list of the baby parts wanted. … when such orders are received … they are faxed to the retrieval agent at the clinic who harvests the requested parts and ships them to the buyer."

The documentation was provided at that time to Life Dynamics by a worker who left Comprehensive Health for Women, a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Overland Park, Kansas.

Among the documents was a "Fee-for-Services" Schedule A, effective June 1998, which outlined a charge of $220 per specimen for first-trimester aspiration abortions and $260 if the baby parts were frozen.

Crutcher's report, citing Planned Parenthood's own paperwork, found one agent sold during February 1996 alone 47 livers, 11 liver fragments, seven brains, 21 eyes, eight thymuses, 23 legs, 14 pancreases, 14 lungs, six arms and one kidney-adrenal gland.

He also sold three orders of blood from the unborn child. The retrieval agent "harvested all of the parts," the report said, explaining that "in order for the blood of an aborted child to be sold, the dead baby had to be brought to him intact."

The "specimens," the report said, would have generated up to about $25,000 in revenue for one month from one retrieval agent at one Planned Parenthood business.

Crutcher reported the tissue logs reveal that one baby is often chopped up and sold to many buyers.

For example, babies taken from donors 113968 and 114189 were both killed late in their second trimester and cut into nine pieces. By applying the price list, buyers would have been invoiced between $3,510 and $5,070 for these parts, he said.

Planned Parenthood faces new charge it broke law


----------



## sakinago

Asclepias said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha no, it has very little to do with numbers. arist 2 chat, if a dr looking over schaivo says "she's getting better everyday, and will make a full recovery in 4 or so months on life support, slight chance she won't make it, but she'll be back to normal just give it time" ... Is it still ok for the husband to pull her off life support?
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize the wife is not a fetus or a premie dont you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I do, you do realize you can answer the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you answer mine I will answer yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what your question is, but I've never seen more people dodge a question on usmb than right now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........
> 
> "What reason is that if its the same?"
Click to expand...

Oh I already answered, activist justice department IRS targeting is not conspiracy, the whole thing started with the IRS admitting they had been unfairly targeting, but tried to play it down as a few lone wolves. Then we found out it wasn't just a few low level employes, but it was systemic probably went to the top. No one can prove it went to Lerner, bc Lerner destroyed evidence in an active investigation, stuff that congress was requesting for the investigation. That is a felony for you and me


----------



## paddymurphy

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have a copy of them before they were edited??
> 
> You say they are edited, if you have not seen the originals with your own eyes how do you know??
> 
> Even if there is some editing how do you justify morally anything we have seen.
> 
> This editing, what would it have changed??
> 
> I mean it seems to be the crux of your assertion, that they are edited.
> 
> So tell us all, how and for what reason??
> 
> 
> 
> You cant have it both ways. If you are claiming that PP broke some law why are they not in prison?  If you are claiming a conspiracy then you must have some proof. Where is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another Obama / democratic / left failure to follow the law and enforce it as per SOP.
Click to expand...

They broke no law.


----------



## Asclepias

sakinago said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize the wife is not a fetus or a premie dont you?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do, you do realize you can answer the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you answer mine I will answer yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what your question is, but I've never seen more people dodge a question on usmb than right now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........
> 
> "What reason is that if its the same?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I already answered, activist justice department IRS targeting is not conspiracy, the whole thing started with the IRS admitting they had been unfairly targeting, but tried to play it down as a few lone wolves. Then we found out it wasn't just a few low level employes, but it was systemic probably went to the top. No one can prove it went to Lerner, bc Lerner destroyed evidence in an active investigation, stuff that congress was requesting for the investigation. That is a felony for you and me
Click to expand...

Must be tough living with conspiracies and no proof of anything.


----------



## sakinago

So can I get an answer to is it ok for the husband to pull life support  on sciavo if MD says "she's showing signs of recovery, and will be healthy and back to normal, just keep her on life support for 4 months or so"


----------



## sakinago

19 Facts On IRS Targeting President Obama Can t Blame On Republicans - Forbes

Thank you forbes. If all of that sounds perfectly normal, then I have a bridge to sell you


----------



## sakinago

Asclepias said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do, you do realize you can answer the question
> 
> 
> 
> If you answer mine I will answer yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what your question is, but I've never seen more people dodge a question on usmb than right now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........
> 
> "What reason is that if its the same?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I already answered, activist justice department IRS targeting is not conspiracy, the whole thing started with the IRS admitting they had been unfairly targeting, but tried to play it down as a few lone wolves. Then we found out it wasn't just a few low level employes, but it was systemic probably went to the top. No one can prove it went to Lerner, bc Lerner destroyed evidence in an active investigation, stuff that congress was requesting for the investigation. That is a felony for you and me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be tough living with conspiracies and no proof of anything.
Click to expand...

Now can I get an answer


----------



## Asclepias

sakinago said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you answer mine I will answer yours.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what your question is, but I've never seen more people dodge a question on usmb than right now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........
> 
> "What reason is that if its the same?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I already answered, activist justice department IRS targeting is not conspiracy, the whole thing started with the IRS admitting they had been unfairly targeting, but tried to play it down as a few lone wolves. Then we found out it wasn't just a few low level employes, but it was systemic probably went to the top. No one can prove it went to Lerner, bc Lerner destroyed evidence in an active investigation, stuff that congress was requesting for the investigation. That is a felony for you and me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be tough living with conspiracies and no proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now can I get an answer
Click to expand...

No you cant get an answer. I dont lower myself to pretending to have rational conversation with someone that holds on to conspiracies without a shred of proof.  You may as well be one of those people that claim aliens kidnapped and molested them.


----------



## sakinago

Asclepias said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what your question is, but I've never seen more people dodge a question on usmb than right now
> 
> 
> 
> If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........
> 
> "What reason is that if its the same?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I already answered, activist justice department IRS targeting is not conspiracy, the whole thing started with the IRS admitting they had been unfairly targeting, but tried to play it down as a few lone wolves. Then we found out it wasn't just a few low level employes, but it was systemic probably went to the top. No one can prove it went to Lerner, bc Lerner destroyed evidence in an active investigation, stuff that congress was requesting for the investigation. That is a felony for you and me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be tough living with conspiracies and no proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now can I get an answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you cant get an answer. I dont lower myself to pretending to have rational conversation with someone that holds on to conspiracies without a shred of proof.  You may as well be one of those people that claim aliens kidnapped and molested them.
Click to expand...

Haha total dodging, if there's holes in the argument then please point them out, if not then please answer or get off your high horse


----------



## sakinago

sakinago said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had not of dodged my question in the first place you wouldnt have to ask what it is.at this point. You mentioned that no one was in jail from PP for the same reason Hilary was not in jail. I asked you........
> 
> "What reason is that if its the same?"
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I already answered, activist justice department IRS targeting is not conspiracy, the whole thing started with the IRS admitting they had been unfairly targeting, but tried to play it down as a few lone wolves. Then we found out it wasn't just a few low level employes, but it was systemic probably went to the top. No one can prove it went to Lerner, bc Lerner destroyed evidence in an active investigation, stuff that congress was requesting for the investigation. That is a felony for you and me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be tough living with conspiracies and no proof of anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now can I get an answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you cant get an answer. I dont lower myself to pretending to have rational conversation with someone that holds on to conspiracies without a shred of proof.  You may as well be one of those people that claim aliens kidnapped and molested them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha total dodging, if there's holes in the argument then please point them out, if not then please answer or get off your high horse
Click to expand...

And get off your high horse actually, that's what I meant.

And don't feel bad, your one of many to run from this question


----------



## EverCurious

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you fucking idiot.
Click to expand...


I'm an idiot?  Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...

Video 1 - 
Time stamp 4:46.  FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.

FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation.  I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP

FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."

PP: "mhmm"

FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."

PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly."  PP:: "Yeah."  (Your fucking subtitles flat out LIE)

FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'."  Video cuts out.

The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time."  LEGAL COMPENSATION.

Video 2 - 
In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.

PP 3 "$75 a specimen."

FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low."  PP Shrugs  FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy."  PP continues: "And I was going to say $50.  I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.

Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence."  NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.


----------



## sakinago

EverCurious said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an idiot?  Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...
> 
> Video 1 -
> Time stamp 4:46.  FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.
> 
> FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation.  I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."
> 
> PP: "mhmm"
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."
> 
> PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly."  PP:: "Yeah."  (Your fucking subtitles flat out LIE)
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'."  Video cuts out.
> 
> The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time."  LEGAL COMPENSATION.
> 
> Video 2 -
> In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.
> 
> PP 3 "$75 a specimen."
> 
> FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low."  PP Shrugs  FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy."  PP continues: "And I was going to say $50.  I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.
> 
> Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence."  NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.
Click to expand...

I've already stated my view that if this is how you feel about abortion, then yes donate the tissue. But, Americans have felt very strongly for in the past about things we've been very wrong on; slavery, Jim Crow, manifest destiny, interment camps, DOMA. Are we that daft to think we are completely right today?? Like so many civilizations before us thought they were totally justified?


----------



## koshergrl

EverCurious said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an idiot?  Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...
> 
> Video 1 -
> Time stamp 4:46.  FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.
> 
> FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation.  I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."
> 
> PP: "mhmm"
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."
> 
> PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly."  PP:: "Yeah."  (Your fucking subtitles flat out LIE)
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'."  Video cuts out.
> 
> The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time."  LEGAL COMPENSATION.
> 
> Video 2 -
> In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.
> 
> PP 3 "$75 a specimen."
> 
> FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low."  PP Shrugs  FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy."  PP continues: "And I was going to say $50.  I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.
> 
> Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence."  NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.
Click to expand...

That's an intricate and awesome lie. Does it feel slimy when you defend people who blatantly profit off the misery and deaths of the vulnerable and abused?


----------



## EverCurious

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an idiot?  Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...
> 
> Video 1 -
> Time stamp 4:46.  FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.
> 
> FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation.  I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."
> 
> PP: "mhmm"
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."
> 
> PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly."  PP:: "Yeah."  (Your fucking subtitles flat out LIE)
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'."  Video cuts out.
> 
> The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time."  LEGAL COMPENSATION.
> 
> Video 2 -
> In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.
> 
> PP 3 "$75 a specimen."
> 
> FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low."  PP Shrugs  FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy."  PP continues: "And I was going to say $50.  I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.
> 
> Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence."  NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an intricate and awesome lie. Does it feel slimy when you defend people who blatantly profit off the misery and deaths of the vulnerable and abused?
Click to expand...




koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an idiot?  Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...
> 
> Video 1 -
> Time stamp 4:46.  FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.
> 
> FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation.  I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."
> 
> PP: "mhmm"
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."
> 
> PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly."  PP:: "Yeah."  (Your fucking subtitles flat out LIE)
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'."  Video cuts out.
> 
> The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time."  LEGAL COMPENSATION.
> 
> Video 2 -
> In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.
> 
> PP 3 "$75 a specimen."
> 
> FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low."  PP Shrugs  FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy."  PP continues: "And I was going to say $50.  I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.
> 
> Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence."  NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an intricate and awesome lie. Does it feel slimy when you defend people who blatantly profit off the misery and deaths of the vulnerable and abused?
Click to expand...


WHAT LIE?!?  It's in the damn videos....


----------



## koshergrl

EverCurious said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an idiot?  Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...
> 
> Video 1 -
> Time stamp 4:46.  FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.
> 
> FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation.  I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."
> 
> PP: "mhmm"
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."
> 
> PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly."  PP:: "Yeah."  (Your fucking subtitles flat out LIE)
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'."  Video cuts out.
> 
> The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time."  LEGAL COMPENSATION.
> 
> Video 2 -
> In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.
> 
> PP 3 "$75 a specimen."
> 
> FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low."  PP Shrugs  FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy."  PP continues: "And I was going to say $50.  I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.
> 
> Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence."  NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an intricate and awesome lie. Does it feel slimy when you defend people who blatantly profit off the misery and deaths of the vulnerable and abused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> In both of your presented cases, it was the BUYER (the fraud) who was saying that, NOT PP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it wasn't, you asshat. It was the PP director, you fucking idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm an idiot?  Uhm, women have different voices, clearly you can't tell the difference...
> 
> Video 1 -
> Time stamp 4:46.  FEMALE BUYER is talking about top compensation and shit, NOT PP.
> 
> FEMALE BUYER: "... for example compensation.  I want to come in and pay you top dollar because I know what you're going to be facing, and I want you to be happy, I want to make sure our suppliers are happy, so compensation, okay, your cost is negligent. So it could look like we're paying you for a specimens," ~ NOT PP
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5 "So let's talk about it correctly."
> 
> PP: "mhmm"
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5:06: "We all know that, yet, that's what we're doing."
> 
> PP 5:07: "So processing and time, and..." - FEMALE BUYER CUTS OFF PP: "Exactly."  PP:: "Yeah."  (Your fucking subtitles flat out LIE)
> 
> FEMALE BUYER 5:15 "So yes, I am paying you, but how we're talking about it out there in the 'public square'."  Video cuts out.
> 
> The buyer implied clearly in the beginning of the exchange that there was obvious concern about it being seen as paying for specimens despite the fact that it was just compensation for "Processing and time."  LEGAL COMPENSATION.
> 
> Video 2 -
> In context, PP had no idea how much it costs but the BUYER wants an answer so she reports what she's seen in other agencies as the cost.
> 
> PP 3 "$75 a specimen."
> 
> FEMALE BUYER: "Oh, that's way to low."  PP Shrugs  FEMALE BUYER 3 "And that's really, that's way too low. I don't -" slightly interrupted by pp but continues "I want to keep you happy."  PP continues: "And I was going to say $50.  I've been to places that did $50 too. But see, we don't, we're not in it for the money, we don't want to be" Video cuts out.
> 
> Jesus, just the statement from PP there, "we're not in it for the money," blows your bullshit wide open and it's in your supposed video "evidence."  NOT TRYING TO MAKE A PROFIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's an intricate and awesome lie. Does it feel slimy when you defend people who blatantly profit off the misery and deaths of the vulnerable and abused?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT LIE?!?  It's in the damn videos....
Click to expand...

The videos have lots of footage of various pp bigwigs giggling and simpering and patting themselves on the back for getting top dollar and putting women at increased risk for it....while musing about how they make it appear legal.


----------



## EverCurious

No they don't.  You're seeing what you want to see.


----------



## koshergrl

EverCurious said:


> No they don't.  You're seeing what you want to see.


Lol that's rich from the people who claim that what was filmed somehow isn't real.


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
Click to expand...


Liver and kidney do not function in a fetus.  The mother's organ clear the waste and filter the blood.  The fetus organs are not coded to know what they are.  A raw egg is not a souffle.  A canvas is not a work of art.  A piece of metal is not a car.

It is tissue that would have been disposed of.  The donor approved of it being used for research, it was her tissue.  

When you have tissue removed, from breast tissue to a piece of skin, it has to be biopsied.  Why shouldn't tissue be used for research if it is of benefit?  It is donated.  It is not your tissue, so what is your problem?   Maybe one day you will be the one saved from the research?


----------



## EverCurious

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.  You're seeing what you want to see.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol that's rich from the people who claim that what was filmed somehow isn't real.
Click to expand...


uhm....  Considering I cited the videos and shit, I don't think I'm one of those people...


----------



## aris2chat

DrDoomNGloom said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they can't function as they are under developed.
> As for the 'liver' that was begun ten years ago in the Neatherlands.  Now they use the cells to treat hemophilia by matching the cells up with the persons DNA to create a clotting agent.  The liver after all is what purifies the blood.  Mouse liver were not as effective.  When possible, staying within the species is preferable for a body match.  When no possible other animals are used for transplants and testing, but eventually human trials have to begin.
> 
> Would you rather have a pig heart, or a human heart that was donated?
> 
> Would you rather have baboon blood or human blood?
> 
> The fetal cell are so immature they can be programed with the person's DNA to get match.  They can't transplant the fetal liver as it is far too small and the programming is not complete as to what type of cell it should be yet.  It is still learning it is supposed to be a liver cell before the fetus is born.
> 
> It is like a lump of clay, it has to be molded and shaped before it become a work of art.  It takes time.  It does not become a work of art when it is first thrown.  The cells are the same way, they are still learning what they are.  That is why they can be so easily match/programed for someone's DNA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do folks that are ignorant in medicine come in and spout Bull Shit??
> 
> So ever heard of Ionescu-Shiley heart valves??
> 
> Bovine or Porcine, pick your flavor, seems to have made this company millions.
> 
> There is no widely accepted "blood substitute" , it's primary function is to carry oxygen and no you can not use others species blood in humans.
> 
> Those fetal cells, that can be programmed, are those "embryonic" or "fetal"??
> 
> That fetal liver can not be grown larger in the lab??
> 
> So not possible to transplant a fetal tissue liver into a human, you do realize the article that follows will pretty much end your moronic stance.
> 
> [Snip]
> *Fetal liver transplants.*
> Gale RP1.
> *Author information*
> *Abstract*
> Transplants of hematopoietic stem cells derived from fetal liver during the second trimester of pregnancy can restore hematopoiesis in animals and humans with bone marrow failure. These cells also have a reduced likelihood of causing graft-versus-host disease. Because fetal liver derived hematopoietic stem cells are relatively pure and considerable proliferative potential, they may be reasonable targets for studies of gene modification. Other possible uses of fetal liver derived stem cells are also considered as are results of fetal liver transplants in animals and humans. These data are compared to alternative sources of hematopoietic stem cells including bone marrow and umbilical cord and adult blood.
> 
> Fetal liver transplants. - PubMed - NCBI
Click to expand...


Abortions are done in the first trimester.  Later terms are done to save the mother's life or prevent a still birth due to birth defect or deformity or infant death right after birth that would cause suffering for the infant.

As for the valve, the failure was due to a cusp tear.


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liver and kidney do not function in a fetus.  The mother's organ clear the waste and filter the blood.  The fetus organs are not coded to know what they are.  A raw egg is not a souffle.  A canvas is not a work of art.  A piece of metal is not a car.
> 
> It is tissue that would have been disposed of.  The donor approved of it being used for research, it was her tissue.
> 
> When you have tissue removed, from breast tissue to a piece of skin, it has to be biopsied.  Why shouldn't tissue be used for research if it is of benefit?  It is donated.  It is not your tissue, so what is your problem?   Maybe one day you will be the one saved from the research?
Click to expand...

So why do they want later term  livers for research so badly? (Watch first video). And I notice you give no time mark for what say


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liver and kidney do not function in a fetus.  The mother's organ clear the waste and filter the blood.  The fetus organs are not coded to know what they are.  A raw egg is not a souffle.  A canvas is not a work of art.  A piece of metal is not a car.
> 
> It is tissue that would have been disposed of.  The donor approved of it being used for research, it was her tissue.
> 
> When you have tissue removed, from breast tissue to a piece of skin, it has to be biopsied.  Why shouldn't tissue be used for research if it is of benefit?  It is donated.  It is not your tissue, so what is your problem?   Maybe one day you will be the one saved from the research?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do they want later term  livers for research so badly? (Watch first video). And I notice you give no time mark for what say
Click to expand...


The later the term, the more the tissue knows what it is to become.  It actually begins to know it is a liver.  A bit like pouring slip into a mold, the longer it sets the more shape it takes.  Then the mold has to be fired to set hard into shape before color and glazing are applied.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liver and kidney do not function in a fetus.  The mother's organ clear the waste and filter the blood.  The fetus organs are not coded to know what they are.  A raw egg is not a souffle.  A canvas is not a work of art.  A piece of metal is not a car.
> 
> It is tissue that would have been disposed of.  The donor approved of it being used for research, it was her tissue.
> 
> When you have tissue removed, from breast tissue to a piece of skin, it has to be biopsied.  Why shouldn't tissue be used for research if it is of benefit?  It is donated.  It is not your tissue, so what is your problem?   Maybe one day you will be the one saved from the research?
Click to expand...


Showing our ignorance again I see, there are 2 types of fetal cells, "embryonic" and "tissue specific", which ones do you think they are selling??

Those tissue specific fetal cells, you reckon there is a meaning to the "TISSUE SPECIFIC" name??


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

aris2chat said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they can't function as they are under developed.
> As for the 'liver' that was begun ten years ago in the Neatherlands.  Now they use the cells to treat hemophilia by matching the cells up with the persons DNA to create a clotting agent.  The liver after all is what purifies the blood.  Mouse liver were not as effective.  When possible, staying within the species is preferable for a body match.  When no possible other animals are used for transplants and testing, but eventually human trials have to begin.
> 
> Would you rather have a pig heart, or a human heart that was donated?
> 
> Would you rather have baboon blood or human blood?
> 
> The fetal cell are so immature they can be programed with the person's DNA to get match.  They can't transplant the fetal liver as it is far too small and the programming is not complete as to what type of cell it should be yet.  It is still learning it is supposed to be a liver cell before the fetus is born.
> 
> It is like a lump of clay, it has to be molded and shaped before it become a work of art.  It takes time.  It does not become a work of art when it is first thrown.  The cells are the same way, they are still learning what they are.  That is why they can be so easily match/programed for someone's DNA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do folks that are ignorant in medicine come in and spout Bull Shit??
> 
> So ever heard of Ionescu-Shiley heart valves??
> 
> Bovine or Porcine, pick your flavor, seems to have made this company millions.
> 
> There is no widely accepted "blood substitute" , it's primary function is to carry oxygen and no you can not use others species blood in humans.
> 
> Those fetal cells, that can be programmed, are those "embryonic" or "fetal"??
> 
> That fetal liver can not be grown larger in the lab??
> 
> So not possible to transplant a fetal tissue liver into a human, you do realize the article that follows will pretty much end your moronic stance.
> 
> [Snip]
> *Fetal liver transplants.*
> Gale RP1.
> *Author information*
> *Abstract*
> Transplants of hematopoietic stem cells derived from fetal liver during the second trimester of pregnancy can restore hematopoiesis in animals and humans with bone marrow failure. These cells also have a reduced likelihood of causing graft-versus-host disease. Because fetal liver derived hematopoietic stem cells are relatively pure and considerable proliferative potential, they may be reasonable targets for studies of gene modification. Other possible uses of fetal liver derived stem cells are also considered as are results of fetal liver transplants in animals and humans. These data are compared to alternative sources of hematopoietic stem cells including bone marrow and umbilical cord and adult blood.
> 
> Fetal liver transplants. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortions are done in the first trimester.  Later terms are done to save the mother's life or prevent a still birth due to birth defect or deformity or infant death right after birth that would cause suffering for the infant.
> 
> As for the valve, the failure was due to a cusp tear.
Click to expand...



I noticed all that Bull shit medical talk went to an irrelevant statement.

What type of fetal tissue comes from planned parenthood??


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

So you are just to ignorant to even know what we are discussing ...................

I see .............

You impeach your self ..................

Fucking baby killing troll.


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liver and kidney do not function in a fetus.  The mother's organ clear the waste and filter the blood.  The fetus organs are not coded to know what they are.  A raw egg is not a souffle.  A canvas is not a work of art.  A piece of metal is not a car.
> 
> It is tissue that would have been disposed of.  The donor approved of it being used for research, it was her tissue.
> 
> When you have tissue removed, from breast tissue to a piece of skin, it has to be biopsied.  Why shouldn't tissue be used for research if it is of benefit?  It is donated.  It is not your tissue, so what is your problem?   Maybe one day you will be the one saved from the research?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do they want later term  livers for research so badly? (Watch first video). And I notice you give no time mark for what say
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The later the term, the more the tissue knows what it is to become.  It actually begins to know it is a liver.  A bit like pouring slip into a mold, the longer it sets the more shape it takes.  Then the mold has to be fired to set hard into shape before color and glazing are applied.
Click to expand...

Haha how late term. 

And Arist 2 chat you never answered the question of Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull her of life support if the Md says give it 5 months on life support and she'll be back to normal, 4% chance she won't make it, but should be back to normal.


----------



## koshergrl

EverCurious said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they don't.  You're seeing what you want to see.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol that's rich from the people who claim that what was filmed somehow isn't real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uhm....  Considering I cited the videos and shit, I don't think I'm one of those people...
Click to expand...

Yes, you are. You pretend the PP reps didn't say what they obviously said. I don't give a shit what the other ppl said.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? When did an 80% chance of recovery become a 98% chance?
> 
> Like I said, it's crystal clear even you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> You compared a pregnancy with someone on life support who would have a 98% chance of recovery (i.e., birth) *IN* 3 months. How does one consider your brain-dead hypothesis about a baby being born *IN* 3 months without subtracting 3 months from the average length of conception?
> 
> 
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 27 week PREMIE has about an 80% of making it. Now numbers on miscarriages and such are difficult to give just one number, bc of factors like has the mother had a miscarriage before and etc.
> 
> But if you have different numbers then by all means post them and apply them to Sherri Tiavo, see if it's ok to kill her off. We can even do a poll on usmb see who thinks it's ok to for the husband to let her starve to death.  So far all you have done is try to split hairs on the numbers in this scenario, claim they're crazy, but not post why they're crazy. So be my guest. At least winter born could actually make intelligent arguments, I think I poked holes in those arguments, but they were based on intelligence, not splitting hairs on numbers without rebuttals
Click to expand...

You can't keep your story straight. First you say a 27 week old embryo has a 98% chance .... then you say 80% ... then you say 96% ... then you say 80% again.

Let me know when you agree with yourself on a single number and then we can resume this......


----------



## idb

DrDoomNGloom said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> 
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they can't function as they are under developed.
> As for the 'liver' that was begun ten years ago in the Neatherlands.  Now they use the cells to treat hemophilia by matching the cells up with the persons DNA to create a clotting agent.  The liver after all is what purifies the blood.  Mouse liver were not as effective.  When possible, staying within the species is preferable for a body match.  When no possible other animals are used for transplants and testing, but eventually human trials have to begin.
> 
> Would you rather have a pig heart, or a human heart that was donated?
> 
> Would you rather have baboon blood or human blood?
> 
> The fetal cell are so immature they can be programed with the person's DNA to get match.  They can't transplant the fetal liver as it is far too small and the programming is not complete as to what type of cell it should be yet.  It is still learning it is supposed to be a liver cell before the fetus is born.
> 
> It is like a lump of clay, it has to be molded and shaped before it become a work of art.  It takes time.  It does not become a work of art when it is first thrown.  The cells are the same way, they are still learning what they are.  That is why they can be so easily match/programed for someone's DNA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do folks that are ignorant in medicine come in and spout Bull Shit??
> 
> So ever heard of Ionescu-Shiley heart valves??
> 
> Bovine or Porcine, pick your flavor, seems to have made this company millions.
> 
> There is no widely accepted "blood substitute" , it's primary function is to carry oxygen and no you can not use others species blood in humans.
> 
> Those fetal cells, that can be programmed, are those "embryonic" or "fetal"??
> 
> That fetal liver can not be grown larger in the lab??
> 
> So not possible to transplant a fetal tissue liver into a human, you do realize the article that follows will pretty much end your moronic stance.
> 
> [Snip]
> *Fetal liver transplants.*
> Gale RP1.
> *Author information*
> *Abstract*
> Transplants of hematopoietic stem cells derived from fetal liver during the second trimester of pregnancy can restore hematopoiesis in animals and humans with bone marrow failure. These cells also have a reduced likelihood of causing graft-versus-host disease. Because fetal liver derived hematopoietic stem cells are relatively pure and considerable proliferative potential, they may be reasonable targets for studies of gene modification. Other possible uses of fetal liver derived stem cells are also considered as are results of fetal liver transplants in animals and humans. These data are compared to alternative sources of hematopoietic stem cells including bone marrow and umbilical cord and adult blood.
> 
> Fetal liver transplants. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortions are done in the first trimester.  Later terms are done to save the mother's life or prevent a still birth due to birth defect or deformity or infant death right after birth that would cause suffering for the infant.
> 
> As for the valve, the failure was due to a cusp tear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed all that Bull shit medical talk went to an irrelevant statement.
> 
> What type of fetal tissue comes from planned parenthood??
Click to expand...

Which type would it be OK to sell?


----------



## koshergrl

The baby killers, being criminal minded, refuse to acknowledge the horrific conflict of interest inherent in selling dead babies to the highest bidder. They are motivated and vested in encouraging and forcing women to abort late in their pregnancies. They have no issue with using sonagrams to view the babies in order to best harvest them. They are definitely against allowing the mothers have access to those same tools to accurately pinpoint the age of the baby. Because they lie to the moms about the age.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

idb said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they can't function as they are under developed.
> As for the 'liver' that was begun ten years ago in the Neatherlands.  Now they use the cells to treat hemophilia by matching the cells up with the persons DNA to create a clotting agent.  The liver after all is what purifies the blood.  Mouse liver were not as effective.  When possible, staying within the species is preferable for a body match.  When no possible other animals are used for transplants and testing, but eventually human trials have to begin.
> 
> Would you rather have a pig heart, or a human heart that was donated?
> 
> Would you rather have baboon blood or human blood?
> 
> The fetal cell are so immature they can be programed with the person's DNA to get match.  They can't transplant the fetal liver as it is far too small and the programming is not complete as to what type of cell it should be yet.  It is still learning it is supposed to be a liver cell before the fetus is born.
> 
> It is like a lump of clay, it has to be molded and shaped before it become a work of art.  It takes time.  It does not become a work of art when it is first thrown.  The cells are the same way, they are still learning what they are.  That is why they can be so easily match/programed for someone's DNA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do folks that are ignorant in medicine come in and spout Bull Shit??
> 
> So ever heard of Ionescu-Shiley heart valves??
> 
> Bovine or Porcine, pick your flavor, seems to have made this company millions.
> 
> There is no widely accepted "blood substitute" , it's primary function is to carry oxygen and no you can not use others species blood in humans.
> 
> Those fetal cells, that can be programmed, are those "embryonic" or "fetal"??
> 
> That fetal liver can not be grown larger in the lab??
> 
> So not possible to transplant a fetal tissue liver into a human, you do realize the article that follows will pretty much end your moronic stance.
> 
> [Snip]
> *Fetal liver transplants.*
> Gale RP1.
> *Author information*
> *Abstract*
> Transplants of hematopoietic stem cells derived from fetal liver during the second trimester of pregnancy can restore hematopoiesis in animals and humans with bone marrow failure. These cells also have a reduced likelihood of causing graft-versus-host disease. Because fetal liver derived hematopoietic stem cells are relatively pure and considerable proliferative potential, they may be reasonable targets for studies of gene modification. Other possible uses of fetal liver derived stem cells are also considered as are results of fetal liver transplants in animals and humans. These data are compared to alternative sources of hematopoietic stem cells including bone marrow and umbilical cord and adult blood.
> 
> Fetal liver transplants. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortions are done in the first trimester.  Later terms are done to save the mother's life or prevent a still birth due to birth defect or deformity or infant death right after birth that would cause suffering for the infant.
> 
> As for the valve, the failure was due to a cusp tear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed all that Bull shit medical talk went to an irrelevant statement.
> 
> What type of fetal tissue comes from planned parenthood??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which type would it be OK to sell?
Click to expand...


Neither

Look dude we already know you are clueless.

"Tissue specific" are the only type of fetal cells planned parenthood harvest / handles.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
Click to expand...

They're allowed to donate body parts.


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> 
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sad sak is confusing maturity of infant born premature with being born alive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how this is the case arist 2 chat  . What am I saying that is wrong? Where are the holes in my demonstration of the inconsistency of the left?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a losing battle. That's why I put those ppl on ignore.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a losing battle for you. As if you ever had a chance.  That's why you ignore your betters. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em .... if you can't join 'em, run like hell from 'em.


----------



## Faun

Asclepias said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is no one in jail?  You guys are not making sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Same reason Hilary is not in jail. Gen. Petreus got tried and convicted for leaking classified material, which is the lowest classification of secret material. Hilary has done so with TOP SECRET information, which is the highest, but I guess she's above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was not even accused of leaking ANY information.  Her private e-mail server was secured.  There is no allegation that any of that information went any where else.  Stop making shit up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lets see if he answers my question. I'm guessing about right now his brain is short circuiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit all you have is a conspiracy theory?  Thanks. I rest my case.
Click to expand...

Based on Nixon getting impeached, no less.


----------



## koshergrl

Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.


----------



## idb

DrDoomNGloom said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> they can't function as they are under developed.
> As for the 'liver' that was begun ten years ago in the Neatherlands.  Now they use the cells to treat hemophilia by matching the cells up with the persons DNA to create a clotting agent.  The liver after all is what purifies the blood.  Mouse liver were not as effective.  When possible, staying within the species is preferable for a body match.  When no possible other animals are used for transplants and testing, but eventually human trials have to begin.
> 
> Would you rather have a pig heart, or a human heart that was donated?
> 
> Would you rather have baboon blood or human blood?
> 
> The fetal cell are so immature they can be programed with the person's DNA to get match.  They can't transplant the fetal liver as it is far too small and the programming is not complete as to what type of cell it should be yet.  It is still learning it is supposed to be a liver cell before the fetus is born.
> 
> It is like a lump of clay, it has to be molded and shaped before it become a work of art.  It takes time.  It does not become a work of art when it is first thrown.  The cells are the same way, they are still learning what they are.  That is why they can be so easily match/programed for someone's DNA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do folks that are ignorant in medicine come in and spout Bull Shit??
> 
> So ever heard of Ionescu-Shiley heart valves??
> 
> Bovine or Porcine, pick your flavor, seems to have made this company millions.
> 
> There is no widely accepted "blood substitute" , it's primary function is to carry oxygen and no you can not use others species blood in humans.
> 
> Those fetal cells, that can be programmed, are those "embryonic" or "fetal"??
> 
> That fetal liver can not be grown larger in the lab??
> 
> So not possible to transplant a fetal tissue liver into a human, you do realize the article that follows will pretty much end your moronic stance.
> 
> [Snip]
> *Fetal liver transplants.*
> Gale RP1.
> *Author information*
> *Abstract*
> Transplants of hematopoietic stem cells derived from fetal liver during the second trimester of pregnancy can restore hematopoiesis in animals and humans with bone marrow failure. These cells also have a reduced likelihood of causing graft-versus-host disease. Because fetal liver derived hematopoietic stem cells are relatively pure and considerable proliferative potential, they may be reasonable targets for studies of gene modification. Other possible uses of fetal liver derived stem cells are also considered as are results of fetal liver transplants in animals and humans. These data are compared to alternative sources of hematopoietic stem cells including bone marrow and umbilical cord and adult blood.
> 
> Fetal liver transplants. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortions are done in the first trimester.  Later terms are done to save the mother's life or prevent a still birth due to birth defect or deformity or infant death right after birth that would cause suffering for the infant.
> 
> As for the valve, the failure was due to a cusp tear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed all that Bull shit medical talk went to an irrelevant statement.
> 
> What type of fetal tissue comes from planned parenthood??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which type would it be OK to sell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither
> 
> Look dude we already know you are clueless.
> 
> "Tissue specific" are the only type of fetal cells planned parenthood harvest / handles.
Click to expand...

That's strange...it seems to be vitally important to you to establish which type of tissue they're supposedly selling.
If it's not important then, as I said earlier, I think you're just showing off something you learned on Google today.

To recognise your achievement I'm going to go back to your last post and give you a little 'i' - that will stand for "*i*sn't he clever?".


----------



## Faun

DrDoomNGloom said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> One is chance of being born alive and the other is the chance of a premy to survive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the relevance of either premies or babies to a conversation about planned parenthood and selling of body parts??
> 
> Your off topic post with no content are going to start being reported.
Click to expand...

Pussies tattle-tale. Just thought you should know that before you soil yourself.


----------



## Lakhota

Why do you stupid fucking anti-choice NaziCons just keep lying your asses off?  *Anyone remember polio?*

One of the earliest advances with fetal tissue was to use fetal kidney cells to create the first poliovirus vaccines, which are now estimated to save 550,000 lives worldwide every year.

How exactly fetal tissue is used for medicine - CNN.com

Let's Remember Why Fetal Tissue Research Matters - Michele Goodwin


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.


You get funnier and funnier...can I give you more than one 'funny' at a time?
I hope so.

Give us another one with 'baby killer' in it...I love those.

**Edit**
Damn!
Limited to one at a time!


----------



## koshergrl

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> You get funnier and funnier...can I give you more than one 'funny' at a time?
> I hope so.
> 
> Give us another one with 'baby killer' in it...I love those.
Click to expand...

I know you do, ghoul.


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> You get funnier and funnier...can I give you more than one 'funny' at a time?
> I hope so.
> 
> Give us another one with 'baby killer' in it...I love those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you do, ghoul.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 'ghoul's' pretty good but...oh, I know, what about 'baby harvesting'?


----------



## koshergrl

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> You get funnier and funnier...can I give you more than one 'funny' at a time?
> I hope so.
> 
> Give us another one with 'baby killer' in it...I love those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you do, ghoul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, 'ghoul's' pretty good but...oh, I know, what about 'baby harvesting'?
Click to expand...

You probably find abuse, assault, and murder pretty fun, too. All babykillers do.


----------



## EverCurious

Like I said a couple pages ago, un-fucking-reasonable.  It doesn't matter what anyone says, there's no "debate" they want abortion made illegal, they want donations forbidden, they want pp defunded based on /their personal beliefs/  period - and if we don't happen to agree well then we can fuck off.

There is nothing to talk about here, no reason to talk about it - on a discussion board.


----------



## koshergrl

EverCurious said:


> Like I said a couple pages ago, un-fucking-reasonable.  It doesn't matter what anyone says, there's no "debate" they want abortion made illegal, they want donations forbidden, they want pp defunded based on /their personal beliefs/  period - and if we don't happen to agree well then we can fuck off.
> 
> There is nothing to talk about here, no reason to talk about it - on a discussion board.


Then don't. Meanwhile we'll continue to bust the butchers and broadcast their disgusting methods.


----------



## koshergrl

Fruitcakes said Gosnells' house of horrors was imaginary, too. They just like to see women degraded, cut up and killed.


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> You get funnier and funnier...can I give you more than one 'funny' at a time?
> I hope so.
> 
> Give us another one with 'baby killer' in it...I love those.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you do, ghoul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, 'ghoul's' pretty good but...oh, I know, what about 'baby harvesting'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You probably find abuse, assault, and murder pretty fun, too. All babykillers do.
Click to expand...

This could be a good drinking game on a Friday.
The players each pick a word and everytime you mention it that person has to drink.
I'll pick 'babykillers'...hell, I'll be drunk in no time!
'Butchers' would be another good one.


----------



## EverCurious

koshergrl said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said a couple pages ago, un-fucking-reasonable.  It doesn't matter what anyone says, there's no "debate" they want abortion made illegal, they want donations forbidden, they want pp defunded based on /their personal beliefs/  period - and if we don't happen to agree well then we can fuck off.
> 
> There is nothing to talk about here, no reason to talk about it - on a discussion board.
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't. Meanwhile we'll continue to bust the butchers and broadcast their disgusting methods.
Click to expand...


And I'll continue to write you off as an idiot not worth reading.  We're both happy


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha it became 80% when you started asking the viability of a 27 week embryo, which I've stated numerous times that I am talking about carrying the baby to term. And I've also said 3 months was just a number I threw out, would you prefer I said six months. Either way 80% or 98%, 3 months or six months it doesn't matter. The point of the analogy was to demonstrate your inconsistency was when you said It's not morally right to take Sherri off life support, but it's ok to do it to a baby.
> 
> I'm sorry this provides an internal conflict with your views, but it may not be just as simple as it's just a clump of cells, go ahed and kill it.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 27 week PREMIE has about an 80% of making it. Now numbers on miscarriages and such are difficult to give just one number, bc of factors like has the mother had a miscarriage before and etc.
> 
> But if you have different numbers then by all means post them and apply them to Sherri Tiavo, see if it's ok to kill her off. We can even do a poll on usmb see who thinks it's ok to for the husband to let her starve to death.  So far all you have done is try to split hairs on the numbers in this scenario, claim they're crazy, but not post why they're crazy. So be my guest. At least winter born could actually make intelligent arguments, I think I poked holes in those arguments, but they were based on intelligence, not splitting hairs on numbers without rebuttals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't keep your story straight. First you say a 27 week old embryo has a 98% chance .... then you say 80% ... then you say 96% ... then you say 80% again.
> 
> Let me know when you agree with yourself on a single number and then we can resume this......
Click to expand...

It's because as I've said many times the numbers don't really matter, it's an ethics question, not a math problem.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no conflict. I think you're crazy. With 6 months to go to delivery, the chances of a live birth are far less than 80%. Your 98% figure remains delusional. And there is no inconsistency. Both get to choose. The woman gets to choose for her pregnancy and people get to choose for their spouse.
> 
> 
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 27 week PREMIE has about an 80% of making it. Now numbers on miscarriages and such are difficult to give just one number, bc of factors like has the mother had a miscarriage before and etc.
> 
> But if you have different numbers then by all means post them and apply them to Sherri Tiavo, see if it's ok to kill her off. We can even do a poll on usmb see who thinks it's ok to for the husband to let her starve to death.  So far all you have done is try to split hairs on the numbers in this scenario, claim they're crazy, but not post why they're crazy. So be my guest. At least winter born could actually make intelligent arguments, I think I poked holes in those arguments, but they were based on intelligence, not splitting hairs on numbers without rebuttals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't keep your story straight. First you say a 27 week old embryo has a 98% chance .... then you say 80% ... then you say 96% ... then you say 80% again.
> 
> Let me know when you agree with yourself on a single number and then we can resume this......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's because as I've said many times the numbers don't really matter, it's an ethics question, not a math problem.
Click to expand...

No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.

Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 27 week PREMIE has about an 80% of making it. Now numbers on miscarriages and such are difficult to give just one number, bc of factors like has the mother had a miscarriage before and etc.
> 
> But if you have different numbers then by all means post them and apply them to Sherri Tiavo, see if it's ok to kill her off. We can even do a poll on usmb see who thinks it's ok to for the husband to let her starve to death.  So far all you have done is try to split hairs on the numbers in this scenario, claim they're crazy, but not post why they're crazy. So be my guest. At least winter born could actually make intelligent arguments, I think I poked holes in those arguments, but they were based on intelligence, not splitting hairs on numbers without rebuttals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't keep your story straight. First you say a 27 week old embryo has a 98% chance .... then you say 80% ... then you say 96% ... then you say 80% again.
> 
> Let me know when you agree with yourself on a single number and then we can resume this......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's because as I've said many times the numbers don't really matter, it's an ethics question, not a math problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
Click to expand...



You really are totally clueless if we need to provide your ignorant childish ass with a definition ................


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

*Ethics* (also moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. The term *ethics* derives from the Ancient Greek word ἠθικός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit, “custom”).
*Ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



*
Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*Ethics*


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.


Like you give a rat's ass about women.  You would charge them all with murder and lock them up, if not kill them.


----------



## Faun

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 27 week PREMIE has about an 80% of making it. Now numbers on miscarriages and such are difficult to give just one number, bc of factors like has the mother had a miscarriage before and etc.
> 
> But if you have different numbers then by all means post them and apply them to Sherri Tiavo, see if it's ok to kill her off. We can even do a poll on usmb see who thinks it's ok to for the husband to let her starve to death.  So far all you have done is try to split hairs on the numbers in this scenario, claim they're crazy, but not post why they're crazy. So be my guest. At least winter born could actually make intelligent arguments, I think I poked holes in those arguments, but they were based on intelligence, not splitting hairs on numbers without rebuttals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't keep your story straight. First you say a 27 week old embryo has a 98% chance .... then you say 80% ... then you say 96% ... then you say 80% again.
> 
> Let me know when you agree with yourself on a single number and then we can resume this......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's because as I've said many times the numbers don't really matter, it's an ethics question, not a math problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really are totally clueless if we need to provide your ignorant childish ass with a definition ................
Click to expand...

Oh look... an imbecile who _claims_ he put me on ignore can actually see my posts. 

And you're so fucking retarded, you _think _ my post was seeking a definition.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> Like you give a rat's ass about women.  You would charge them all with murder and lock them up, if not kill them.
Click to expand...

No, I would charge the monsters who cut them up, kill their babies and abuse them in jail. I don't believe in the death penalty, even for butchers.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> Like you give a rat's ass about women.  You would charge them all with murder and lock them up, if not kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I would charge the monsters who cut them up, kill their babies and abuse them in jail. I don't believe in the death penalty, even for butchers.
Click to expand...

So, then, it really has nothing to do with the use of fetal tissues, you just want to use that, to lie about what the videos depict to attain your ultimate goal of outlawing all abortions.  Makes you not the most credible person to tell us what the videos depict.  Personally, if the videos depict PP officals actually trying to profit from the sale of fetal tissue (which is kind of odd since PP is a non-profit and no one makes money off of their services beyond what their salaries are), I would support prosecution. But that is not what you want.  You want PP shut down.  You want the 88% of their services that are not abortion related shut down just to stop them from performing abortions.  So, you lie and claim, without a shred of evidence, that women are abused and forced to undergo abortions.  Then you raise the spectre of Kermit Gosnell, a murdering butcher that no pro-choice person supported when what he was doing was revealed. Frankly, guys like him are the result of the constant pressure you folks create that drive more and more doctors to not do abortions.  So, good job is helping to make the Kermit Gosnells of the world possible.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> Like you give a rat's ass about women.  You would charge them all with murder and lock them up, if not kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I would charge the monsters who cut them up, kill their babies and abuse them in jail. I don't believe in the death penalty, even for butchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, then, it really has nothing to do with the use of fetal tissues, you just want to use that, to lie about what the videos depict to attain your ultimate goal of outlawing all abortions.  Makes you not the most credible person to tell us what the videos depict.  Personally, if the videos depict PP officals actually trying to profit from the sale of fetal tissue (which is kind of odd since PP is a non-profit and no one makes money off of their services beyond what their salaries are), I would support prosecution. But that is not what you want.  You want PP shut down.  You want the 88% of their services that are not abortion related shut down just to stop them from performing abortions.  So, you lie and claim, without a shred of evidence, that women are abused and forced to undergo abortions.  Then you raise the spectre of Kermit Gosnell, a murdering butcher that no pro-choice person supported when what he was doing was revealed. Frankly, guys like him are the result of the constant pressure you folks create that drive more and more doctors to not do abortions.  So, good job is helping to make the Kermit Gosnells of the world possible.
Click to expand...

No, you moron. I've said repeatedly it's not about using the tissue...it's about the ILLEGAL harvest and sale. Get a clue.


----------



## koshergrl

It's the babykilling criminals who keep changing the subject. You don't like to deal with the criminal acts of pp, so you talk about how important research is. Then you pretend we're the ones changing the subject...and you forget what the real discussion was about. What yards.


----------



## paperview

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> Like you give a rat's ass about women.  You would charge them all with murder and lock them up, if not kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I would charge the monsters who cut them up, kill their babies and abuse them in jail. I don't believe in the death penalty, even for butchers.
Click to expand...

You would not charge the person who is actually requesting the "murder" -( in your eyes)?  Women get a legal pass for conspiring to commit_ murder_?


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> Like you give a rat's ass about women.  You would charge them all with murder and lock them up, if not kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I would charge the monsters who cut them up, kill their babies and abuse them in jail. I don't believe in the death penalty, even for butchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, then, it really has nothing to do with the use of fetal tissues, you just want to use that, to lie about what the videos depict to attain your ultimate goal of outlawing all abortions.  Makes you not the most credible person to tell us what the videos depict.  Personally, if the videos depict PP officals actually trying to profit from the sale of fetal tissue (which is kind of odd since PP is a non-profit and no one makes money off of their services beyond what their salaries are), I would support prosecution. But that is not what you want.  You want PP shut down.  You want the 88% of their services that are not abortion related shut down just to stop them from performing abortions.  So, you lie and claim, without a shred of evidence, that women are abused and forced to undergo abortions.  Then you raise the spectre of Kermit Gosnell, a murdering butcher that no pro-choice person supported when what he was doing was revealed. Frankly, guys like him are the result of the constant pressure you folks create that drive more and more doctors to not do abortions.  So, good job is helping to make the Kermit Gosnells of the world possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you moron. I've said repeatedly it's not about using the tissue...it's about the ILLEGAL harvest and sale. Get a clue.
Click to expand...

But it is not about the illegal harvest and sale. First of all, there has been no illegal harvest or sale. Second of all, you would still call abortion providers murders and butchers if there were no use of fetal tissue for life saving medical research; you know, the kind of research Dr. Carson was doing. So, you lie.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> It's the babykilling criminals who keep changing the subject. You don't like to deal with the criminal acts of pp, so you talk about how important research is. Then you pretend we're the ones changing the subject...and you forget what the real discussion was about. What yards.


Here is what the discussion is about for you:  "the babykilling criminals."  You do not care about the lawful use of fetal tissue in research.  That is simply a something assholes like you can use to try to further restrict the reproductive rights of women.  You want to defund PP, not because of abortion only; you want to defund the 90 % of what they do that has nothing to do with abortion. You don't want women to have access to birth control; you don't want them to have access to the other health care services PP provides.  If you wanted that to remain, you would not call for defunding them.  After all, not a dime of the government funding they receive is used in connection with abortion.  So, you want to defund prenatal care; you want to defund birth control; you want to defund pap smears and mammograms; you want to defund anything that PP does to help women because they assist women in obtaining the perfectly legal medical procedure you want to ban.


----------



## paddymurphy

paperview said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> Like you give a rat's ass about women.  You would charge them all with murder and lock them up, if not kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I would charge the monsters who cut them up, kill their babies and abuse them in jail. I don't believe in the death penalty, even for butchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You would not charge the person who is actually requesting the "murder" -( in your eyes)?  Women get a legal pass for conspiring to commit_ murder_?
Click to expand...

Actually, she would.  But these clowns understand that if they say that, it turns off the vast majority of Americans; the majority who, grudgingly, support a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.  Instead, they make these altered videos and twist conversations into something they are not.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> An expecting mother in the second trimester has only a 4% percent chance of a miscarriage. And you said it was not ok to choose to take Sherri off of life support. So I guess you are changing your opinion. Since you are changing opinions, if the doctor told the husband of Sherri that she was going to have a 4% of not making it, but should fully recover while remaining on life support, is it ok for the husband to say take her off.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 27 week PREMIE has about an 80% of making it. Now numbers on miscarriages and such are difficult to give just one number, bc of factors like has the mother had a miscarriage before and etc.
> 
> But if you have different numbers then by all means post them and apply them to Sherri Tiavo, see if it's ok to kill her off. We can even do a poll on usmb see who thinks it's ok to for the husband to let her starve to death.  So far all you have done is try to split hairs on the numbers in this scenario, claim they're crazy, but not post why they're crazy. So be my guest. At least winter born could actually make intelligent arguments, I think I poked holes in those arguments, but they were based on intelligence, not splitting hairs on numbers without rebuttals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't keep your story straight. First you say a 27 week old embryo has a 98% chance .... then you say 80% ... then you say 96% ... then you say 80% again.
> 
> Let me know when you agree with yourself on a single number and then we can resume this......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's because as I've said many times the numbers don't really matter, it's an ethics question, not a math problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
Click to expand...

Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.

And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.


----------



## koshergrl

Ah, paddy again tries to drag research in. Again....it's illegal to sell body parts. It's illegal to alter procedures for profit. Has nothing to do with research. We're just talking about the law and endangering and exploiting women....which is something baby killers enjoy.


----------



## sakinago

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the babykilling criminals who keep changing the subject. You don't like to deal with the criminal acts of pp, so you talk about how important research is. Then you pretend we're the ones changing the subject...and you forget what the real discussion was about. What yards.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the discussion is about for you:  "the babykilling criminals."  You do not care about the lawful use of fetal tissue in research.  That is simply a something assholes like you can use to try to further restrict the reproductive rights of women.  You want to defund PP, not because of abortion only; you want to defund the 90 % of what they do that has nothing to do with abortion. You don't want women to have access to birth control; you don't want them to have access to the other health care services PP provides.  If you wanted that to remain, you would not call for defunding them.  After all, not a dime of the government funding they receive is used in connection with abortion.  So, you want to defund prenatal care; you want to defund birth control; you want to defund pap smears and mammograms; you want to defund anything that PP does to help women because they assist women in obtaining the perfectly legal medical procedure you want to ban.
Click to expand...

They don't count things like medication, counseling, etc, that goes along with much of abortion into that number. You can talk about the legality of donating/selling tissue but it's a lot like debating what to do with money after as bank has been robbed. Don't rob the bank


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> Ah, paddy again tries to drag research in. Again....it's illegal to sell body parts. It's illegal to alter procedures for profit. Has nothing to do with research. We're just talking about the law and endangering and exploiting women....which is something baby killers enjoy.


Yes it is illegal. No, they did not break the law.  And no, they did not "endanger" women nor did they exploit them.  Pricks like you are the ones trying to endanger women; trying to force them back into the clutches of the Kermit Gosnell's of the world who will perform illegal abortions if the price is right.


----------



## paddymurphy

sakinago said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the babykilling criminals who keep changing the subject. You don't like to deal with the criminal acts of pp, so you talk about how important research is. Then you pretend we're the ones changing the subject...and you forget what the real discussion was about. What yards.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the discussion is about for you:  "the babykilling criminals."  You do not care about the lawful use of fetal tissue in research.  That is simply a something assholes like you can use to try to further restrict the reproductive rights of women.  You want to defund PP, not because of abortion only; you want to defund the 90 % of what they do that has nothing to do with abortion. You don't want women to have access to birth control; you don't want them to have access to the other health care services PP provides.  If you wanted that to remain, you would not call for defunding them.  After all, not a dime of the government funding they receive is used in connection with abortion.  So, you want to defund prenatal care; you want to defund birth control; you want to defund pap smears and mammograms; you want to defund anything that PP does to help women because they assist women in obtaining the perfectly legal medical procedure you want to ban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't count things like medication, counseling, etc, that goes along with much of abortion into that number. You can talk about the legality of donating/selling tissue but it's a lot like debating what to do with money after as bank has been robbed. Don't rob the bank
Click to expand...

Actually, they do.  Any expense associated with providing an abortion, medication, equipment, etc. is part of that expense.  Counseling is not because counseling is providing information about all of the options to a woman, including taking the pregnancy to term and keeping or putting the baby up for adoption.  But, you are right.  It is hypocritical of folks like kosher girl to pretend that their concern is over the improper use of the tissue when what they are really concerned with is the abortion itself.  Apparently, lying to achieve their ultimate objective of denying women access to abortion or other reproductive related services like birth control is perfectly OK.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

You keep going back to research but dodging an intelligent conversation on the subject

You have still not responded with what types of tissue PP is harvesting, is it "embryonic" or "tissue specific" ...........

So you keep eluding to research tell us, what exactly the have to have again from these abortions to do research??

Don't quote some article that says Ben Carson does fetal cell research, he is not here for that conversation, we are.

Those older vaccines and all of the older research have alternatives that do not require fetal tissue, so where does your argument go now??

You might want to research "induced pluripotent stem cells" if you would like to appear even slightly intelligent in our next conversation.


----------



## paddymurphy

DrDoomNGloom said:


> You keep going back to research but dodging an intelligent conversation on the subject
> 
> You have still not responded with what types of tissue PP is harvesting, is it "embryonic" or "tissue specific" ...........
> 
> So you keep eluding to research tell us what exactly the have to have again for these abortions to do research??
> 
> Don't quote some article that says Ben Carson does fetal cell research, he is not here for that conversation, we are.
> 
> Those older vaccines and all of the older research have alternatives that do not require fetal tissue, so where does your argument go now??
> 
> You might want to research "induced pluripotent stem cells" if you would like to appear even slightly intelligent in our next conversation.


You and I have not had a conversation. You have not asked me a single fucking question so stop pretending that I have not responded.   And I did not "elude" to anything. (Buy a dictionary, dumbass).   They use the tissue for research.  That is a fact.  What do you think the tissue is being used for if not research?  Why do research labs ask for it if they are not using it in research?  Explain to us your entire theory on why tissue from a fetus would be preserved and shipped to researchers if they are not using it for medical research?  

Here is the abstract from Dr. Carson's research paper:
"The histogenesis of colloid cysts (CCs) of the third ventricle has been a subject of controversy. We examined, using immunohistochemical techniques, four CCs for the presence of cytokeratins (CKs), glutathione S-transferase isoenzymes (GST-pi, GST-mu), and glial fibrillary acidic protein. Antibodies to both low molecular weight CKs (anti-CK8) and to a mixture of CKs (AE1/AE3) were used. For comparison, _*normal fetal*_ and adult choroid plexus, ependyma, and nasal mucosa were also examined. The epithelium lining all four CCs showed positive immunostaining for the CKs and GST-pi but not for GST-mu or glial fibrillary acidic protein. *Fetal *and adult nasal mucosa showed a pattern of immunohistochemical staining almost identical to that of CCs. In contrast, *feta*l and adult choroid plexus tissue showed positive immunostaining for GST-pi and low molecular weight CKs but not for the CK mixture (AE1/AE3).* Fetal* and adult ependyma were negative for both CKs and GST-pi. These results suggest that CCs differentiate along nonneural lines distinct from the neuroepithelial differentiation of the choroid plexus and ependyma."

As for getting into a debate about the specific research being done, how it is beneficial and what is being researched, neither you nor I have any ability to discuss that intelligently, especially you.  So, I rely on the experts in this field and they obviously think it is important:
"University laboratories that buy such cells strongly defend their research, saying tissue that would otherwise be thrown out has played a vital role in lifesaving medical advances and holds great potential for further breakthroughs.

Fetal cells are considered ideal because they divide rapidly, adapt to new environments easily and are less susceptible to rejection than adult cells when transplanted.

"If researchers are unable to work with fetal tissue, there is a huge list of diseases for which researchers would move much more slowly, rather than quickly, to find their cause and how they can be cured," Stanford University spokeswoman Lisa Lapin said in an email.

From 2011 through 2014 alone, 97 research institutions — mostly universities and hospitals — received a total of $280 million in federal grants for fetal tissue research from the National Institutes of Health. A few institutions have consistently gotten large shares of that money, including Yale, the University of California and Massachusetts General Hospital, which is affiliated with Harvard.

The U.S. government prohibits the sale of fetal tissue for profit and requires separation between researchers and the women who donate fetuses. Some schools go further, requiring written consent from donors.

Many major universities declined to make scientists available for interviews about their fetal tissue work, saying they fear for the researchers' safety because the issue is so highly charged. The Planned Parenthood uproar led to a failed attempt by Republicans to strip the organization of federal funding.

Researchers use fetal tissue to understand cell biology and human development. Others use it to look for treatments for AIDS. Research on spinal cord injuries and eyesight-robbing macular degeneration involves transplanting fetal cells into patients. European researchers recently began putting fetal tissue into patients' brains to try to treat Parkinson's, a strategy that previously had mixed results.

Some scientists are looking for alternatives to fetal tissue, such as using adult cells that have been "reprogrammed" to their earlier forms. But those techniques are still being refined, and some fields are likely to remain reliant on fetal tissue, such as the study of fetal development.

Vaccines have been one of the chief public benefits of fetal tissue research. Vaccines for hepatitis A, German measles, chickenpox and rabies, for example, were developed using cell lines grown from tissue from two elective abortions, one in England and one in Sweden, that were performed in the 1960s.

German measles, also known as rubella, "caused 5,000 spontaneous abortions a year prior to the vaccine," said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious-disease specialist at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "We wouldn't have saved all those lives had it not been for those cells."

Fetal tissue was "absolutely critical" to the development of a potential Ebola vaccine that has shown promise, said Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, an associate director at NIH, which last year handed out $76 million for work involving fetal tissue, or 0.2 percent of the agency's research budget.

Scientists are also using fetal tissue to try to identify substances in adults that could be early warning signs of cancer, said Dr. Akhilesh Pandey, a molecular biologist at Johns Hopkins University.

Experts at MIT and other research centers use fetal tissue to implant the human immune system into mice, as a way to study diseases without employing people as test subjects. They add tumors to study the immune system's response, then test cancer treatments out on the mice.

"This eventually will provide a benefit to society," said Jianzhu Chen, an immunology professor and researcher at MIT.

At Stanford, fetal tissue has been used to study Huntington's disease, "bubble boy disease" and juvenile diabetes. Fetal brain calls are now being used there in research on autism and schizophrenia.

After the release of the undercover videos, Colorado State University conducted an ethics review and suspended its dealings with one vendor. But it is pressing ahead with its HIV research with fetal tissue.

"Our position is this research has such tremendous value in driving discoveries that could be done no other way," said Alan Rudolph, university vice president of research."
Scientists say fetal tissue essential for medical research Boston Herald

What you think about it matters to no one but you.


----------



## paddymurphy

From the good doctor's research.


----------



## paddymurphy

sakinago said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the babykilling criminals who keep changing the subject. You don't like to deal with the criminal acts of pp, so you talk about how important research is. Then you pretend we're the ones changing the subject...and you forget what the real discussion was about. What yards.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what the discussion is about for you:  "the babykilling criminals."  You do not care about the lawful use of fetal tissue in research.  That is simply a something assholes like you can use to try to further restrict the reproductive rights of women.  You want to defund PP, not because of abortion only; you want to defund the 90 % of what they do that has nothing to do with abortion. You don't want women to have access to birth control; you don't want them to have access to the other health care services PP provides.  If you wanted that to remain, you would not call for defunding them.  After all, not a dime of the government funding they receive is used in connection with abortion.  So, you want to defund prenatal care; you want to defund birth control; you want to defund pap smears and mammograms; you want to defund anything that PP does to help women because they assist women in obtaining the perfectly legal medical procedure you want to ban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't count things like medication, counseling, etc, that goes along with much of abortion into that number. You can talk about the legality of donating/selling tissue but it's a lot like debating what to do with money after as bank has been robbed. Don't rob the bank
Click to expand...


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

paddymurphy said:


> What you think about it matters to no one but you.



So even after being asked direct question and not to quote some article you are clueless about you did just exactly that with an ad hominem for good measure.

It is apparent an intelligent conversation is beyond your abilities.

No it is not just me but those who read this thread in silence.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, paddy again tries to drag research in. Again....it's illegal to sell body parts. It's illegal to alter procedures for profit. Has nothing to do with research. We're just talking about the law and endangering and exploiting women....which is something baby killers enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is illegal. No, they did not break the law.  And no, they did not "endanger" women nor did they exploit them.  Pricks like you are the ones trying to endanger women; trying to force them back into the clutches of the Kermit Gosnell's of the world who will perform illegal abortions if the price is right.
Click to expand...

 Yes, you endanger women when you use a more risky procedure for them to procure profits for you. And yes you exploit them when you make $$$$$ off their misery and pain...which you cause. Which is the conflict of interest.

Disgusting. Like you.


----------



## paddymurphy

DrDoomNGloom said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you think about it matters to no one but you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even after being asked direct question and not to quote some article you are clueless about you did just exactly that with an ad hominem for good measure.
> 
> It is apparent an intelligent conversation is beyond your abilities.
> 
> No it is not just me but those who read this thread in silence.
Click to expand...

I provided you with the actual abstract from the article that Ben Carson wrote.  And, you lying prick, I answered your question.  Neither your nor I are qualified to discuss the scientific basis of the research.  So, I provided you with what those who are experts have said about the necessity of the research.  Can you offer anything from an expert in this field that disputes the necessity of such research? No?  Then shut the fuck up.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, paddy again tries to drag research in. Again....it's illegal to sell body parts. It's illegal to alter procedures for profit. Has nothing to do with research. We're just talking about the law and endangering and exploiting women....which is something baby killers enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is illegal. No, they did not break the law.  And no, they did not "endanger" women nor did they exploit them.  Pricks like you are the ones trying to endanger women; trying to force them back into the clutches of the Kermit Gosnell's of the world who will perform illegal abortions if the price is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you endanger women when you use a more risky procedure for them to procure profits for you. And yes you exploit them when you make $$$$$ off their misery and pain...which you cause. Which is the conflict of interest.
> 
> Disgusting. Like you.
Click to expand...

How do I profit from this?  I practice law.  I have nothing to do with these activities.  But, I guess that is typical from assholes like you.  Make baseless attacks, lie, whine.  Not a single woman has come forward  and supported your lies about coercion or abuse.  Not one.  You are fucking liar.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you think about it matters to no one but you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even after being asked direct question and not to quote some article you are clueless about you did just exactly that with an ad hominem for good measure.
> 
> It is apparent an intelligent conversation is beyond your abilities.
> 
> No it is not just me but those who read this thread in silence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I provided you with the actual abstract from the article that Ben Carson wrote.  And, you lying prick, I answered your question.  Neither your nor I are qualified to discuss the scientific basis of the research.  So, I provided you with what those who are experts have said about the necessity of the research.  Can you offer anything from an expert in this field that disputes the necessity of such research? No?  Then shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...

 Yes, you do that. Just accept blindly what people you idolize tell you.

And why do you idolize them? You idolize them because they use the product of abortion and dead babies' flesh. You think that makes them special.

Yuck.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, paddy again tries to drag research in. Again....it's illegal to sell body parts. It's illegal to alter procedures for profit. Has nothing to do with research. We're just talking about the law and endangering and exploiting women....which is something baby killers enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is illegal. No, they did not break the law.  And no, they did not "endanger" women nor did they exploit them.  Pricks like you are the ones trying to endanger women; trying to force them back into the clutches of the Kermit Gosnell's of the world who will perform illegal abortions if the price is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you endanger women when you use a more risky procedure for them to procure profits for you. And yes you exploit them when you make $$$$$ off their misery and pain...which you cause. Which is the conflict of interest.
> 
> Disgusting. Like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do I profit from this?  I practice law.  I have nothing to do with these activities.  But, I guess that is typical from assholes like you.  Make baseless attacks, lie, whine.  Not a single woman has come forward  and supported your lies about coercion or abuse.  Not one.  You are fucking liar.
Click to expand...

 The "you" was a rhetorical "you", moron.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, paddy again tries to drag research in. Again....it's illegal to sell body parts. It's illegal to alter procedures for profit. Has nothing to do with research. We're just talking about the law and endangering and exploiting women....which is something baby killers enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is illegal. No, they did not break the law.  And no, they did not "endanger" women nor did they exploit them.  Pricks like you are the ones trying to endanger women; trying to force them back into the clutches of the Kermit Gosnell's of the world who will perform illegal abortions if the price is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you endanger women when you use a more risky procedure for them to procure profits for you. And yes you exploit them when you make $$$$$ off their misery and pain...which you cause. Which is the conflict of interest.
> 
> Disgusting. Like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do I profit from this?  I practice law.  I have nothing to do with these activities.  But, I guess that is typical from assholes like you.  Make baseless attacks, lie, whine.  Not a single woman has come forward  and supported your lies about coercion or abuse.  Not one.  You are fucking liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "you" was a rhetorical "you", moron.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you do not understand the word "rhetorical."


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

I see you are still being nasty and seeing how you keep dodging my specific medical questions and using ad hominems, I contend not only are you not intelligent enough to discuss it but have no actual idea's as to what I am qualified to discuss.

So as a little ignorant law clerk you really think you have a MENSA level IQ, I'm guessing by the ducking, dodging and vehement outburst you don't.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you think about it matters to no one but you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even after being asked direct question and not to quote some article you are clueless about you did just exactly that with an ad hominem for good measure.
> 
> It is apparent an intelligent conversation is beyond your abilities.
> 
> No it is not just me but those who read this thread in silence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I provided you with the actual abstract from the article that Ben Carson wrote.  And, you lying prick, I answered your question.  Neither your nor I are qualified to discuss the scientific basis of the research.  So, I provided you with what those who are experts have said about the necessity of the research.  Can you offer anything from an expert in this field that disputes the necessity of such research? No?  Then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you do that. Just accept blindly what people you idolize tell you.
> 
> And why do you idolize them? You idolize them because they use the product of abortion and dead babies' flesh. You think that makes them special.
> 
> Yuck.
Click to expand...

People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, paddy again tries to drag research in. Again....it's illegal to sell body parts. It's illegal to alter procedures for profit. Has nothing to do with research. We're just talking about the law and endangering and exploiting women....which is something baby killers enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is illegal. No, they did not break the law.  And no, they did not "endanger" women nor did they exploit them.  Pricks like you are the ones trying to endanger women; trying to force them back into the clutches of the Kermit Gosnell's of the world who will perform illegal abortions if the price is right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you endanger women when you use a more risky procedure for them to procure profits for you. And yes you exploit them when you make $$$$$ off their misery and pain...which you cause. Which is the conflict of interest.
> 
> Disgusting. Like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do I profit from this?  I practice law.  I have nothing to do with these activities.  But, I guess that is typical from assholes like you.  Make baseless attacks, lie, whine.  Not a single woman has come forward  and supported your lies about coercion or abuse.  Not one.  You are fucking liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The "you" was a rhetorical "you", moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you do not understand the word "rhetorical."
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't, lol. Thank you, that made my day.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

Catchy phrase, "reproductive freedom" in an abortion thread ...............

Talk about irony ...................


----------



## sakinago

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you think about it matters to no one but you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even after being asked direct question and not to quote some article you are clueless about you did just exactly that with an ad hominem for good measure.
> 
> It is apparent an intelligent conversation is beyond your abilities.
> 
> No it is not just me but those who read this thread in silence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I provided you with the actual abstract from the article that Ben Carson wrote.  And, you lying prick, I answered your question.  Neither your nor I are qualified to discuss the scientific basis of the research.  So, I provided you with what those who are experts have said about the necessity of the research.  Can you offer anything from an expert in this field that disputes the necessity of such research? No?  Then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you do that. Just accept blindly what people you idolize tell you.
> 
> And why do you idolize them? You idolize them because they use the product of abortion and dead babies' flesh. You think that makes them special.
> 
> Yuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.
Click to expand...

Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are


----------



## paddymurphy

sakinago said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you think about it matters to no one but you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even after being asked direct question and not to quote some article you are clueless about you did just exactly that with an ad hominem for good measure.
> 
> It is apparent an intelligent conversation is beyond your abilities.
> 
> No it is not just me but those who read this thread in silence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I provided you with the actual abstract from the article that Ben Carson wrote.  And, you lying prick, I answered your question.  Neither your nor I are qualified to discuss the scientific basis of the research.  So, I provided you with what those who are experts have said about the necessity of the research.  Can you offer anything from an expert in this field that disputes the necessity of such research? No?  Then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you do that. Just accept blindly what people you idolize tell you.
> 
> And why do you idolize them? You idolize them because they use the product of abortion and dead babies' flesh. You think that makes them special.
> 
> Yuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
Click to expand...

So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?


----------



## paddymurphy

DrDoomNGloom said:


> I see you are still being nasty and seeing how you keep dodging my specific medical questions and using ad hominems, I contend not only are you not intelligent enough to discuss it but have no actual idea's as to what I am qualified to discuss.
> 
> So as a little ignorant law clerk you really think you have a MENSA level IQ, I'm guessing by the ducking, dodging and vehement outburst you don't.


I did not dodge.  Them how fucking stupid can you be to think that.  I have a pretty good idea what you are qualified to discuss.  Not much.  Are you a physician?  No.  A medical researcher?  No.  Do you even have a degree in biology or chemistry or some field related to biomedical research?  No.  You are an asshole who reads right wing talking points and regurgitates them, pretending to know what you are posting.  I have answered your question by telling you that I am not qualified to discuss the scientific basis of fetal tissue research.  Neither are you.  I cited what those who are qualified have so say.  Can you refute them?  No.  Can you explain what the hell you think the researchers are doing with the fetal tissue if they are not conducting research?  Was Dr. Carson lying in his research study when he described the results of his research?  Funny that you would accuse me of overestimating my intelligence when I am the one admitting I have no understanding of the scientific basis for fetal research.  What is your education and training that makes you qualified?


----------



## paddymurphy

DrDoomNGloom said:


> Catchy phrase, "reproductive freedom" in an abortion thread ...............
> 
> Talk about irony ...................


You have a problem with freedom?  You pricks want to ban abortion, birth control, sex education and anything that might give a woman control over her reproductive life.


----------



## DrDoomNGloom

paddymurphy said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catchy phrase, "reproductive freedom" in an abortion thread ...............
> 
> Talk about irony ...................
> 
> 
> 
> You have a problem with freedom?  You pricks want to ban abortion, birth control, sex education and anything that might give a woman control over her reproductive life.
Click to expand...



Keep your legs shut, has worked since the creation of time, no one can take that.

I see nothing but ad hominems which I am going to start flagging.


----------



## paddymurphy

DrDoomNGloom said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catchy phrase, "reproductive freedom" in an abortion thread ...............
> 
> Talk about irony ...................
> 
> 
> 
> You have a problem with freedom?  You pricks want to ban abortion, birth control, sex education and anything that might give a woman control over her reproductive life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs shut, has worked since the creation of time, no one can take that.
> 
> I see nothing but ad hominems which I am going to start flagging.
Click to expand...

You assholes want to ban birth control, abortion and sex education and anything that might want to give a woman control over her reproductive freedom.  That better, prick? 

Thanks for sharing the asshole's version of reproductive freedom.  Pretty much what one would expect from you neanderthals.


----------



## paddymurphy

DrDoomNGloom said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catchy phrase, "reproductive freedom" in an abortion thread ...............
> 
> Talk about irony ...................
> 
> 
> 
> You have a problem with freedom?  You pricks want to ban abortion, birth control, sex education and anything that might give a woman control over her reproductive life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs shut, has worked since the creation of time, no one can take that.
> 
> I see nothing but ad hominems which I am going to start flagging.
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> So even after being asked direct question and not to quote some article you are clueless about you did just exactly that with an ad hominem for good measure.
> 
> It is apparent an intelligent conversation is beyond your abilities.
> 
> No it is not just me but those who read this thread in silence.
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you with the actual abstract from the article that Ben Carson wrote.  And, you lying prick, I answered your question.  Neither your nor I are qualified to discuss the scientific basis of the research.  So, I provided you with what those who are experts have said about the necessity of the research.  Can you offer anything from an expert in this field that disputes the necessity of such research? No?  Then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you do that. Just accept blindly what people you idolize tell you.
> 
> And why do you idolize them? You idolize them because they use the product of abortion and dead babies' flesh. You think that makes them special.
> 
> Yuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
Click to expand...

 When they are caught selling dead babies for $$, then the potential is absolutely there that they're doing it to obtain the *tissue*. That's why it's illegal.

I have come to the conclusion that either there is no intelligent progressive on the planet, or they simply don't come here.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you with the actual abstract from the article that Ben Carson wrote.  And, you lying prick, I answered your question.  Neither your nor I are qualified to discuss the scientific basis of the research.  So, I provided you with what those who are experts have said about the necessity of the research.  Can you offer anything from an expert in this field that disputes the necessity of such research? No?  Then shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do that. Just accept blindly what people you idolize tell you.
> 
> And why do you idolize them? You idolize them because they use the product of abortion and dead babies' flesh. You think that makes them special.
> 
> Yuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When they are caught selling dead babies for $$, then the potential is absolutely there that they're doing it to obtain the *tissue*. That's why it's illegal.
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that either there is no intelligent progressive on the planet, or they simply don't come here.
Click to expand...

Well, when someone is caught selling dead babies, you let us know.  It is, and should be, illegal to sell organs for transplant; to sell tissue for research; or to sell fetal tissue for research.  No one disputes that.  You repeatedly claim that we defend the selling of such tissue when, in fact, we don't.  It is simply not true that the video provide convincing evidence that what you claim is happening, is happening.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do that. Just accept blindly what people you idolize tell you.
> 
> And why do you idolize them? You idolize them because they use the product of abortion and dead babies' flesh. You think that makes them special.
> 
> Yuck.
> 
> 
> 
> People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When they are caught selling dead babies for $$, then the potential is absolutely there that they're doing it to obtain the *tissue*. That's why it's illegal.
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that either there is no intelligent progressive on the planet, or they simply don't come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, when someone is caught selling dead babies, you let us know.  It is, and should be, illegal to sell organs for transplant; to sell tissue for research; or to sell fetal tissue for research.  No one disputes that.  You repeatedly claim that we defend the selling of such tissue when, in fact, we don't.  It is simply not true that the video provide convincing evidence that what you claim is happening, is happening.
Click to expand...

 
Multiple someones have been caught. You are just pretending it didn't happen, so you can protect the butchers who abuse women and sell dead babies.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When they are caught selling dead babies for $$, then the potential is absolutely there that they're doing it to obtain the *tissue*. That's why it's illegal.
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that either there is no intelligent progressive on the planet, or they simply don't come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, when someone is caught selling dead babies, you let us know.  It is, and should be, illegal to sell organs for transplant; to sell tissue for research; or to sell fetal tissue for research.  No one disputes that.  You repeatedly claim that we defend the selling of such tissue when, in fact, we don't.  It is simply not true that the video provide convincing evidence that what you claim is happening, is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Multiple someones have been caught. You are just pretending it didn't happen, so you can protect the butchers who abuse women and sell dead babies.
Click to expand...

Again, your concern is with the "butchers."  You do not care about women.  You do not care about research.  You will use anything you can to try to ban abortion.  You are lying if you deny that.


----------



## sakinago

paddymurphy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> So even after being asked direct question and not to quote some article you are clueless about you did just exactly that with an ad hominem for good measure.
> 
> It is apparent an intelligent conversation is beyond your abilities.
> 
> No it is not just me but those who read this thread in silence.
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you with the actual abstract from the article that Ben Carson wrote.  And, you lying prick, I answered your question.  Neither your nor I are qualified to discuss the scientific basis of the research.  So, I provided you with what those who are experts have said about the necessity of the research.  Can you offer anything from an expert in this field that disputes the necessity of such research? No?  Then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you do that. Just accept blindly what people you idolize tell you.
> 
> And why do you idolize them? You idolize them because they use the product of abortion and dead babies' flesh. You think that makes them special.
> 
> Yuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about organ transplant??? Nice straw man on a totally separate issue. I'm on record saying if that's how you feel about abortion, go ahed and donate the parts. But the people here championing abortion can't answer a simple question of do you take schiavo off of life support if the doctor says give her 4 months and she'll be fine. If you are so secure in supporting abortion then answer the damn question. And then try to explain the difference when that is done to a baby


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
> 
> 
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When they are caught selling dead babies for $$, then the potential is absolutely there that they're doing it to obtain the *tissue*. That's why it's illegal.
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that either there is no intelligent progressive on the planet, or they simply don't come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, when someone is caught selling dead babies, you let us know.  It is, and should be, illegal to sell organs for transplant; to sell tissue for research; or to sell fetal tissue for research.  No one disputes that.  You repeatedly claim that we defend the selling of such tissue when, in fact, we don't.  It is simply not true that the video provide convincing evidence that what you claim is happening, is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Multiple someones have been caught. You are just pretending it didn't happen, so you can protect the butchers who abuse women and sell dead babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, your concern is with the "butchers."  You do not care about women.  You do not care about research.  You will use anything you can to try to ban abortion.  You are lying if you deny that.
Click to expand...

 

No, my concern is to protect vulnerable women from being abused and killed by butchers who want to  harvest and sell their babies. My concern is to protect women from the abusers who force them to get late term abortions in the first place, and who force them to get abortions at any stage in order to hide crimes like child sexual abuse, incest, human trafficking, and sex trafficking....people who abuse and kill women, and who do it with the complicit encouragement and assistance of Planned Parenthood.


----------



## paddymurphy

sakinago said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided you with the actual abstract from the article that Ben Carson wrote.  And, you lying prick, I answered your question.  Neither your nor I are qualified to discuss the scientific basis of the research.  So, I provided you with what those who are experts have said about the necessity of the research.  Can you offer anything from an expert in this field that disputes the necessity of such research? No?  Then shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do that. Just accept blindly what people you idolize tell you.
> 
> And why do you idolize them? You idolize them because they use the product of abortion and dead babies' flesh. You think that makes them special.
> 
> Yuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about organ transplant??? Nice straw man on a totally separate issue. I'm on record saying if that's how you feel about abortion, go ahed and donate the parts. But the people here championing abortion can't answer a simple question of do you take schiavo off of life support if the doctor says give her 4 months and she'll be fine. If you are so secure in supporting abortion then answer the damn question. And then try to explain the difference when that is done to a baby
Click to expand...

Right over your head, huh?  Explain the difference, ethically, between using the tissue from dead fetuses and using the tissue from dead people.  If is it morally and ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the relatives of a dead person either for research or for direct transplantation to liver recipients, why it is not morally or ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the mothers of an aborted fetus for research?  And if it is permissible for the hospital that recovers the organ or preserves the tissue for research to be reimbursed for the cost of services done in connection with that, why it is wrong for Planned Parenthood to similarly be reimbursed for the cost it incurs in securing, storing and transporting the fetal tissue to the researcher?


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> 
> 
> When they are caught selling dead babies for $$, then the potential is absolutely there that they're doing it to obtain the *tissue*. That's why it's illegal.
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that either there is no intelligent progressive on the planet, or they simply don't come here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, when someone is caught selling dead babies, you let us know.  It is, and should be, illegal to sell organs for transplant; to sell tissue for research; or to sell fetal tissue for research.  No one disputes that.  You repeatedly claim that we defend the selling of such tissue when, in fact, we don't.  It is simply not true that the video provide convincing evidence that what you claim is happening, is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Multiple someones have been caught. You are just pretending it didn't happen, so you can protect the butchers who abuse women and sell dead babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, your concern is with the "butchers."  You do not care about women.  You do not care about research.  You will use anything you can to try to ban abortion.  You are lying if you deny that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, my concern is to protect vulnerable women from being abused and killed by butchers who want to  harvest and sell their babies. My concern is to protect women from the abusers who force them to get late term abortions in the first place, and who force them to get abortions at any stage in order to hide crimes like child sexual abuse, incest, human trafficking, and sex trafficking....people who abuse and kill women, and who do it with the complicit encouragement and assistance of Planned Parenthood.
Click to expand...

You are a liar.  You have no concern for women.  they are not being abused or killed by butchers.  If your goal to ban all abortions is reached, there will be Kermit Gosnells in ever town, performing illegal and unsafe abortions; just like there was before Roe v. Wade.  You would rather see a woman die at the hands of a Kermit Gosnell than be able to secure an abortion in a properly licensed clinic with medical professionals performing the procedures.  Your delusion are growing.  Late term abortions are illegal other than to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.  They make up a tiny percentage of all abortions.  You have absolutely no proof of your deluded claims about sex trafficking and the rest of that nonsense.  You want to see women die rather than have the ability to either prevent or terminate an unwanted pregnancy.  You are a vile and hatefilled person.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do that. Just accept blindly what people you idolize tell you.
> 
> And why do you idolize them? You idolize them because they use the product of abortion and dead babies' flesh. You think that makes them special.
> 
> Yuck.
> 
> 
> 
> People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about organ transplant??? Nice straw man on a totally separate issue. I'm on record saying if that's how you feel about abortion, go ahed and donate the parts. But the people here championing abortion can't answer a simple question of do you take schiavo off of life support if the doctor says give her 4 months and she'll be fine. If you are so secure in supporting abortion then answer the damn question. And then try to explain the difference when that is done to a baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right over your head, huh?  Explain the difference, ethically, between using the tissue from dead fetuses and using the tissue from dead people.  If is it morally and ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the relatives of a dead person either for research or for direct transplantation to liver recipients, why it is not morally or ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the mothers of an aborted fetus for research?  And if it is permissible for the hospital that recovers the organ or preserves the tissue for research to be reimbursed for the cost of services done in connection with that, why it is wrong for Planned Parenthood to similarly be reimbursed for the cost it incurs in securing, storing and transporting the fetal tissue to the researcher?
Click to expand...

 
You're talking to an issue that nobody else is speaking to. That isn't the discussion here. The discussion is...should PP be funded by the government when  #1, they're illegally selling dead babies and altering procedures to facilitate that (both of which are straight up criminal), and #2, they're supposed to be protecting the interests of the woman at all costs....which they obviously don't.

The answer is of course not. They should be prosecuted as the criminals they are, and the money the government has been giving to them should to to other women's clinics (of which there are many).


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When they are caught selling dead babies for $$, then the potential is absolutely there that they're doing it to obtain the *tissue*. That's why it's illegal.
> 
> I have come to the conclusion that either there is no intelligent progressive on the planet, or they simply don't come here.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when someone is caught selling dead babies, you let us know.  It is, and should be, illegal to sell organs for transplant; to sell tissue for research; or to sell fetal tissue for research.  No one disputes that.  You repeatedly claim that we defend the selling of such tissue when, in fact, we don't.  It is simply not true that the video provide convincing evidence that what you claim is happening, is happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Multiple someones have been caught. You are just pretending it didn't happen, so you can protect the butchers who abuse women and sell dead babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, your concern is with the "butchers."  You do not care about women.  You do not care about research.  You will use anything you can to try to ban abortion.  You are lying if you deny that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, my concern is to protect vulnerable women from being abused and killed by butchers who want to  harvest and sell their babies. My concern is to protect women from the abusers who force them to get late term abortions in the first place, and who force them to get abortions at any stage in order to hide crimes like child sexual abuse, incest, human trafficking, and sex trafficking....people who abuse and kill women, and who do it with the complicit encouragement and assistance of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a liar.  You have no concern for women.  they are not being abused or killed by butchers.  If your goal to ban all abortions is reached, there will be Kermit Gosnells in ever town, performing illegal and unsafe abortions; just like there was before Roe v. Wade.  You would rather see a woman die at the hands of a Kermit Gosnell than be able to secure an abortion in a properly licensed clinic with medical professionals performing the procedures.  Your delusion are growing.  Late term abortions are illegal other than to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.  They make up a tiny percentage of all abortions.  You have absolutely no proof of your deluded claims about sex trafficking and the rest of that nonsense.  You want to see women die rather than have the ability to either prevent or terminate an unwanted pregnancy.  You are a vile and hatefilled person.
Click to expand...

 
So you maintain that it's good that Planned Parenthood lies to women, takes advantage of women, kills women, and sells their babies.

I suppose somebody has to do it..after all,_ you_ can't be everywhere at once!


----------



## sakinago

paddymurphy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do that. Just accept blindly what people you idolize tell you.
> 
> And why do you idolize them? You idolize them because they use the product of abortion and dead babies' flesh. You think that makes them special.
> 
> Yuck.
> 
> 
> 
> People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about organ transplant??? Nice straw man on a totally separate issue. I'm on record saying if that's how you feel about abortion, go ahed and donate the parts. But the people here championing abortion can't answer a simple question of do you take schiavo off of life support if the doctor says give her 4 months and she'll be fine. If you are so secure in supporting abortion then answer the damn question. And then try to explain the difference when that is done to a baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right over your head, huh?  Explain the difference, ethically, between using the tissue from dead fetuses and using the tissue from dead people.  If is it morally and ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the relatives of a dead person either for research or for direct transplantation to liver recipients, why it is not morally or ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the mothers of an aborted fetus for research?  And if it is permissible for the hospital that recovers the organ or preserves the tissue for research to be reimbursed for the cost of services done in connection with that, why it is wrong for Planned Parenthood to similarly be reimbursed for the cost it incurs in securing, storing and transporting the fetal tissue to the researcher?
Click to expand...

One set of organs are coming from unfortunate unwanted death, the other organs are coming from someone who volunteered death for another, and then said go ahed take the organs. The difference is the cause of death. If you support that so much then we should force those we give the death penalty to, to harvest their organs


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about organ transplant??? Nice straw man on a totally separate issue. I'm on record saying if that's how you feel about abortion, go ahed and donate the parts. But the people here championing abortion can't answer a simple question of do you take schiavo off of life support if the doctor says give her 4 months and she'll be fine. If you are so secure in supporting abortion then answer the damn question. And then try to explain the difference when that is done to a baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right over your head, huh?  Explain the difference, ethically, between using the tissue from dead fetuses and using the tissue from dead people.  If is it morally and ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the relatives of a dead person either for research or for direct transplantation to liver recipients, why it is not morally or ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the mothers of an aborted fetus for research?  And if it is permissible for the hospital that recovers the organ or preserves the tissue for research to be reimbursed for the cost of services done in connection with that, why it is wrong for Planned Parenthood to similarly be reimbursed for the cost it incurs in securing, storing and transporting the fetal tissue to the researcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking to an issue that nobody else is speaking to. That isn't the discussion here. The discussion is...should PP be funded by the government when  #1, they're illegally selling dead babies and altering procedures to facilitate that (both of which are straight up criminal), and #2, they're supposed to be protecting the interests of the woman at all costs....which they obviously don't.
> 
> The answer is of course not. They should be prosecuted as the criminals they are, and the money the government has been giving to them should to to other women's clinics (of which there are many).
Click to expand...

Of course you would be too much of a pussy to not answer those questions.  And, actually, that is the issue.  Is it unethical for an organization to be reimbursed for costs associated with the collection, preservation and transportation of human tissue.  You do believe that there is no difference between a fetus at 15 weeks gestation and a fully grown human, right? They are both people entitled to full protection of the law, according to you.  Then why is it not appropriate to apply the same principles to the retrieval and use of all human tissue, whenever and wherever obtained?  If Planned Parenthood only received reimbursement for their actual cost and did not alter the procedures in a manner that increased the risk to the woman, you would be ok with using fetal tissue in research, right?  Since the government gives no money that is used for abortion, why would you deny Planned Parenthood the money they use to provide contraception; to provide pap smears and mammograms; to treat sexually transmitted diseases?  Why end support for those things?


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
> 
> 
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about organ transplant??? Nice straw man on a totally separate issue. I'm on record saying if that's how you feel about abortion, go ahed and donate the parts. But the people here championing abortion can't answer a simple question of do you take schiavo off of life support if the doctor says give her 4 months and she'll be fine. If you are so secure in supporting abortion then answer the damn question. And then try to explain the difference when that is done to a baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right over your head, huh?  Explain the difference, ethically, between using the tissue from dead fetuses and using the tissue from dead people.  If is it morally and ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the relatives of a dead person either for research or for direct transplantation to liver recipients, why it is not morally or ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the mothers of an aborted fetus for research?  And if it is permissible for the hospital that recovers the organ or preserves the tissue for research to be reimbursed for the cost of services done in connection with that, why it is wrong for Planned Parenthood to similarly be reimbursed for the cost it incurs in securing, storing and transporting the fetal tissue to the researcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking to an issue that nobody else is speaking to. That isn't the discussion here. The discussion is...should PP be funded by the government when  #1, they're illegally selling dead babies and altering procedures to facilitate that (both of which are straight up criminal), and #2, they're supposed to be protecting the interests of the woman at all costs....which they obviously don't.
> 
> The answer is of course not. They should be prosecuted as the criminals they are, and the money the government has been giving to them should to to other women's clinics (of which there are many).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you would be too much of a pussy to not answer those questions.  And, actually, that is the issue.  Is it unethical for an organization to be reimbursed for costs associated with the collection, preservation and transportation of human tissue.  You do believe that there is no difference between a fetus at 15 weeks gestation and a fully grown human, right? They are both people entitled to full protection of the law, according to you.  Then why is it not appropriate to apply the same principles to the retrieval and use of all human tissue, whenever and wherever obtained?  If Planned Parenthood only received reimbursement for their actual cost and did not alter the procedures in a manner that increased the risk to the woman, you would be ok with using fetal tissue in research, right?  Since the government gives no money that is used for abortion, why would you deny Planned Parenthood the money they use to provide contraception; to provide pap smears and mammograms; to treat sexually transmitted diseases?  Why end support for those things?
Click to expand...

 
Other clinics do all that stuff, much better. And they don't sell dead babies or work with pimps and human traffickers to abuse women.


----------



## paddymurphy

sakinago said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about organ transplant??? Nice straw man on a totally separate issue. I'm on record saying if that's how you feel about abortion, go ahed and donate the parts. But the people here championing abortion can't answer a simple question of do you take schiavo off of life support if the doctor says give her 4 months and she'll be fine. If you are so secure in supporting abortion then answer the damn question. And then try to explain the difference when that is done to a baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right over your head, huh?  Explain the difference, ethically, between using the tissue from dead fetuses and using the tissue from dead people.  If is it morally and ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the relatives of a dead person either for research or for direct transplantation to liver recipients, why it is not morally or ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the mothers of an aborted fetus for research?  And if it is permissible for the hospital that recovers the organ or preserves the tissue for research to be reimbursed for the cost of services done in connection with that, why it is wrong for Planned Parenthood to similarly be reimbursed for the cost it incurs in securing, storing and transporting the fetal tissue to the researcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One set of organs are coming from unfortunate unwanted death, the other organs are coming from someone who volunteered death for another, and then said go ahed take the organs. The difference is the cause of death. If you support that so much then we should force those we give the death penalty to, to harvest their organs
Click to expand...

So, then, again, it is not that you oppose the use of fetal tissue or the reimbursement to Planned Parenthood for the costs of their obtaining that tissue. You object to abortion.  A couple of weeks ago a mother whose young daughter died donated her organs to save the life of a little boy who was near death.  I guess since that child could not legally consent you think that it was terrible for the parent to donate those organs?


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about organ transplant??? Nice straw man on a totally separate issue. I'm on record saying if that's how you feel about abortion, go ahed and donate the parts. But the people here championing abortion can't answer a simple question of do you take schiavo off of life support if the doctor says give her 4 months and she'll be fine. If you are so secure in supporting abortion then answer the damn question. And then try to explain the difference when that is done to a baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right over your head, huh?  Explain the difference, ethically, between using the tissue from dead fetuses and using the tissue from dead people.  If is it morally and ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the relatives of a dead person either for research or for direct transplantation to liver recipients, why it is not morally or ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the mothers of an aborted fetus for research?  And if it is permissible for the hospital that recovers the organ or preserves the tissue for research to be reimbursed for the cost of services done in connection with that, why it is wrong for Planned Parenthood to similarly be reimbursed for the cost it incurs in securing, storing and transporting the fetal tissue to the researcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking to an issue that nobody else is speaking to. That isn't the discussion here. The discussion is...should PP be funded by the government when  #1, they're illegally selling dead babies and altering procedures to facilitate that (both of which are straight up criminal), and #2, they're supposed to be protecting the interests of the woman at all costs....which they obviously don't.
> 
> The answer is of course not. They should be prosecuted as the criminals they are, and the money the government has been giving to them should to to other women's clinics (of which there are many).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you would be too much of a pussy to not answer those questions.  And, actually, that is the issue.  Is it unethical for an organization to be reimbursed for costs associated with the collection, preservation and transportation of human tissue.  You do believe that there is no difference between a fetus at 15 weeks gestation and a fully grown human, right? They are both people entitled to full protection of the law, according to you.  Then why is it not appropriate to apply the same principles to the retrieval and use of all human tissue, whenever and wherever obtained?  If Planned Parenthood only received reimbursement for their actual cost and did not alter the procedures in a manner that increased the risk to the woman, you would be ok with using fetal tissue in research, right?  Since the government gives no money that is used for abortion, why would you deny Planned Parenthood the money they use to provide contraception; to provide pap smears and mammograms; to treat sexually transmitted diseases?  Why end support for those things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other clinics do all that stuff, much better. And they don't sell dead babies or work with pimps and human traffickers to abuse women.
Click to expand...

Very few clinics do that "stuff".  And stop with the pimp and sex trafficker nonsense.  As much of a moron as you appeared before, that crap makes you seem really disturbed.  It is not true and you can offer nothing to prove it is true.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when someone is caught selling dead babies, you let us know.  It is, and should be, illegal to sell organs for transplant; to sell tissue for research; or to sell fetal tissue for research.  No one disputes that.  You repeatedly claim that we defend the selling of such tissue when, in fact, we don't.  It is simply not true that the video provide convincing evidence that what you claim is happening, is happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple someones have been caught. You are just pretending it didn't happen, so you can protect the butchers who abuse women and sell dead babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, your concern is with the "butchers."  You do not care about women.  You do not care about research.  You will use anything you can to try to ban abortion.  You are lying if you deny that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, my concern is to protect vulnerable women from being abused and killed by butchers who want to  harvest and sell their babies. My concern is to protect women from the abusers who force them to get late term abortions in the first place, and who force them to get abortions at any stage in order to hide crimes like child sexual abuse, incest, human trafficking, and sex trafficking....people who abuse and kill women, and who do it with the complicit encouragement and assistance of Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a liar.  You have no concern for women.  they are not being abused or killed by butchers.  If your goal to ban all abortions is reached, there will be Kermit Gosnells in ever town, performing illegal and unsafe abortions; just like there was before Roe v. Wade.  You would rather see a woman die at the hands of a Kermit Gosnell than be able to secure an abortion in a properly licensed clinic with medical professionals performing the procedures.  Your delusion are growing.  Late term abortions are illegal other than to save the life or preserve the health of the mother.  They make up a tiny percentage of all abortions.  You have absolutely no proof of your deluded claims about sex trafficking and the rest of that nonsense.  You want to see women die rather than have the ability to either prevent or terminate an unwanted pregnancy.  You are a vile and hatefilled person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you maintain that it's good that Planned Parenthood lies to women, takes advantage of women, kills women, and sells their babies.
> 
> I suppose somebody has to do it..after all,_ you_ can't be everywhere at once!
Click to expand...

They do none of those things.  You have a very low opinion of women, don't you?


----------



## sakinago

paddymurphy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
> 
> 
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said anything about organ transplant??? Nice straw man on a totally separate issue. I'm on record saying if that's how you feel about abortion, go ahed and donate the parts. But the people here championing abortion can't answer a simple question of do you take schiavo off of life support if the doctor says give her 4 months and she'll be fine. If you are so secure in supporting abortion then answer the damn question. And then try to explain the difference when that is done to a baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right over your head, huh?  Explain the difference, ethically, between using the tissue from dead fetuses and using the tissue from dead people.  If is it morally and ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the relatives of a dead person either for research or for direct transplantation to liver recipients, why it is not morally or ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the mothers of an aborted fetus for research?  And if it is permissible for the hospital that recovers the organ or preserves the tissue for research to be reimbursed for the cost of services done in connection with that, why it is wrong for Planned Parenthood to similarly be reimbursed for the cost it incurs in securing, storing and transporting the fetal tissue to the researcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One set of organs are coming from unfortunate unwanted death, the other organs are coming from someone who volunteered death for another, and then said go ahed take the organs. The difference is the cause of death. If you support that so much then we should force those we give the death penalty to, to harvest their organs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, then, again, it is not that you oppose the use of fetal tissue or the reimbursement to Planned Parenthood for the costs of their obtaining that tissue. You object to abortion.  A couple of weeks ago a mother whose young daughter died donated her organs to save the life of a little boy who was near death.  I guess since that child could not legally consent you think that it was terrible for the parent to donate those organs?
Click to expand...

Yes I object to the abortion, I've been saying that for a long time now on this thread. And again that mother did not volunteer her child to die. 

So... Is it ok to pull schiavo off life support if doctor says x amount of months and she'll be ok


----------



## paddymurphy

sakinago said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you would ban organ transplants, then?  The abortions do not take place so that fetal tissue can be obtained. You do know that, right?  So, if the abortion is happening, what, again, is the problem with using the tissue for medical research?  How is that any different from using organs for transplant or tissue for research from a person who has died?
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about organ transplant??? Nice straw man on a totally separate issue. I'm on record saying if that's how you feel about abortion, go ahed and donate the parts. But the people here championing abortion can't answer a simple question of do you take schiavo off of life support if the doctor says give her 4 months and she'll be fine. If you are so secure in supporting abortion then answer the damn question. And then try to explain the difference when that is done to a baby
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right over your head, huh?  Explain the difference, ethically, between using the tissue from dead fetuses and using the tissue from dead people.  If is it morally and ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the relatives of a dead person either for research or for direct transplantation to liver recipients, why it is not morally or ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the mothers of an aborted fetus for research?  And if it is permissible for the hospital that recovers the organ or preserves the tissue for research to be reimbursed for the cost of services done in connection with that, why it is wrong for Planned Parenthood to similarly be reimbursed for the cost it incurs in securing, storing and transporting the fetal tissue to the researcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One set of organs are coming from unfortunate unwanted death, the other organs are coming from someone who volunteered death for another, and then said go ahed take the organs. The difference is the cause of death. If you support that so much then we should force those we give the death penalty to, to harvest their organs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, then, again, it is not that you oppose the use of fetal tissue or the reimbursement to Planned Parenthood for the costs of their obtaining that tissue. You object to abortion.  A couple of weeks ago a mother whose young daughter died donated her organs to save the life of a little boy who was near death.  I guess since that child could not legally consent you think that it was terrible for the parent to donate those organs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I object to the abortion, I've been saying that for a long time now on this thread. And again that mother did not volunteer her child to die.
> 
> So... Is it ok to pull schiavo off life support if doctor says x amount of months and she'll be ok
Click to expand...

Not sure what Schiavo you are talking about but the one in Florida was brain dead and had no chance of recovery.  So, yes, it was ok to allow her to die with some dignity rather than keep her body alive contrary to her wishes.  Too bad her parents did not love her as much as her husband did.


----------



## sakinago

paddymurphy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about organ transplant??? Nice straw man on a totally separate issue. I'm on record saying if that's how you feel about abortion, go ahed and donate the parts. But the people here championing abortion can't answer a simple question of do you take schiavo off of life support if the doctor says give her 4 months and she'll be fine. If you are so secure in supporting abortion then answer the damn question. And then try to explain the difference when that is done to a baby
> 
> 
> 
> Right over your head, huh?  Explain the difference, ethically, between using the tissue from dead fetuses and using the tissue from dead people.  If is it morally and ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the relatives of a dead person either for research or for direct transplantation to liver recipients, why it is not morally or ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the mothers of an aborted fetus for research?  And if it is permissible for the hospital that recovers the organ or preserves the tissue for research to be reimbursed for the cost of services done in connection with that, why it is wrong for Planned Parenthood to similarly be reimbursed for the cost it incurs in securing, storing and transporting the fetal tissue to the researcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One set of organs are coming from unfortunate unwanted death, the other organs are coming from someone who volunteered death for another, and then said go ahed take the organs. The difference is the cause of death. If you support that so much then we should force those we give the death penalty to, to harvest their organs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, then, again, it is not that you oppose the use of fetal tissue or the reimbursement to Planned Parenthood for the costs of their obtaining that tissue. You object to abortion.  A couple of weeks ago a mother whose young daughter died donated her organs to save the life of a little boy who was near death.  I guess since that child could not legally consent you think that it was terrible for the parent to donate those organs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I object to the abortion, I've been saying that for a long time now on this thread. And again that mother did not volunteer her child to die.
> 
> So... Is it ok to pull schiavo off life support if doctor says x amount of months and she'll be ok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what Schiavo you are talking about but the one in Florida was brain dead and had no chance of recovery.  So, yes, it was ok to allow her to die with some dignity rather than keep her body alive contrary to her wishes.  Too bad her parents did not love her as much as her husband did.
Click to expand...

If the doctor looking over schiavo said give her x amount of months on life support and she'll will be fine, small chance she won't make it, but very good chance she'll be fine. Does the husband still have the right to take her off life support


----------



## paddymurphy

sakinago said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right over your head, huh?  Explain the difference, ethically, between using the tissue from dead fetuses and using the tissue from dead people.  If is it morally and ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the relatives of a dead person either for research or for direct transplantation to liver recipients, why it is not morally or ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the mothers of an aborted fetus for research?  And if it is permissible for the hospital that recovers the organ or preserves the tissue for research to be reimbursed for the cost of services done in connection with that, why it is wrong for Planned Parenthood to similarly be reimbursed for the cost it incurs in securing, storing and transporting the fetal tissue to the researcher?
> 
> 
> 
> One set of organs are coming from unfortunate unwanted death, the other organs are coming from someone who volunteered death for another, and then said go ahed take the organs. The difference is the cause of death. If you support that so much then we should force those we give the death penalty to, to harvest their organs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, then, again, it is not that you oppose the use of fetal tissue or the reimbursement to Planned Parenthood for the costs of their obtaining that tissue. You object to abortion.  A couple of weeks ago a mother whose young daughter died donated her organs to save the life of a little boy who was near death.  I guess since that child could not legally consent you think that it was terrible for the parent to donate those organs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I object to the abortion, I've been saying that for a long time now on this thread. And again that mother did not volunteer her child to die.
> 
> So... Is it ok to pull schiavo off life support if doctor says x amount of months and she'll be ok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what Schiavo you are talking about but the one in Florida was brain dead and had no chance of recovery.  So, yes, it was ok to allow her to die with some dignity rather than keep her body alive contrary to her wishes.  Too bad her parents did not love her as much as her husband did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the doctor looking over schiavo said give her x amount of months on life support and she'll will be fine, small chance she won't make it, but very good chance she'll be fine. Does the husband still have the right to take her off life support
Click to expand...

No.  If the doctor tells a husband that his wife will be fine, of course you cannot remove her from life support.  That, of course, is not remotely close to what happened with Terri Schiavo.  She was brain dead and had been so for years.  No doctor who examined her told her or her parents that she would be fine; that she only need a couple more months, after several years, on life support.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said anything about organ transplant??? Nice straw man on a totally separate issue. I'm on record saying if that's how you feel about abortion, go ahed and donate the parts. But the people here championing abortion can't answer a simple question of do you take schiavo off of life support if the doctor says give her 4 months and she'll be fine. If you are so secure in supporting abortion then answer the damn question. And then try to explain the difference when that is done to a baby
> 
> 
> 
> Right over your head, huh?  Explain the difference, ethically, between using the tissue from dead fetuses and using the tissue from dead people.  If is it morally and ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the relatives of a dead person either for research or for direct transplantation to liver recipients, why it is not morally or ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the mothers of an aborted fetus for research?  And if it is permissible for the hospital that recovers the organ or preserves the tissue for research to be reimbursed for the cost of services done in connection with that, why it is wrong for Planned Parenthood to similarly be reimbursed for the cost it incurs in securing, storing and transporting the fetal tissue to the researcher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking to an issue that nobody else is speaking to. That isn't the discussion here. The discussion is...should PP be funded by the government when  #1, they're illegally selling dead babies and altering procedures to facilitate that (both of which are straight up criminal), and #2, they're supposed to be protecting the interests of the woman at all costs....which they obviously don't.
> 
> The answer is of course not. They should be prosecuted as the criminals they are, and the money the government has been giving to them should to to other women's clinics (of which there are many).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you would be too much of a pussy to not answer those questions.  And, actually, that is the issue.  Is it unethical for an organization to be reimbursed for costs associated with the collection, preservation and transportation of human tissue.  You do believe that there is no difference between a fetus at 15 weeks gestation and a fully grown human, right? They are both people entitled to full protection of the law, according to you.  Then why is it not appropriate to apply the same principles to the retrieval and use of all human tissue, whenever and wherever obtained?  If Planned Parenthood only received reimbursement for their actual cost and did not alter the procedures in a manner that increased the risk to the woman, you would be ok with using fetal tissue in research, right?  Since the government gives no money that is used for abortion, why would you deny Planned Parenthood the money they use to provide contraception; to provide pap smears and mammograms; to treat sexually transmitted diseases?  Why end support for those things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other clinics do all that stuff, much better. And they don't sell dead babies or work with pimps and human traffickers to abuse women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very few clinics do that "stuff".  And stop with the pimp and sex trafficker nonsense.  As much of a moron as you appeared before, that crap makes you seem really disturbed.  It is not true and you can offer nothing to prove it is true.
Click to expand...

 
"Planned Parenthood has fired a New Jersey staffer who appeared in an undercover video coaching two people on how to get reproductive health services for their underage sex workers.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/02/planned-parenthood-fires-employee-caught-engaging-in-nefarious-behavior-in-undercover-video/#ixzz3ip8fbIX7


----------



## koshergrl




----------



## koshergrl




----------



## koshergrl




----------



## koshergrl




----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right over your head, huh?  Explain the difference, ethically, between using the tissue from dead fetuses and using the tissue from dead people.  If is it morally and ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the relatives of a dead person either for research or for direct transplantation to liver recipients, why it is not morally or ethically acceptable to use tissue donated by the mothers of an aborted fetus for research?  And if it is permissible for the hospital that recovers the organ or preserves the tissue for research to be reimbursed for the cost of services done in connection with that, why it is wrong for Planned Parenthood to similarly be reimbursed for the cost it incurs in securing, storing and transporting the fetal tissue to the researcher?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking to an issue that nobody else is speaking to. That isn't the discussion here. The discussion is...should PP be funded by the government when  #1, they're illegally selling dead babies and altering procedures to facilitate that (both of which are straight up criminal), and #2, they're supposed to be protecting the interests of the woman at all costs....which they obviously don't.
> 
> The answer is of course not. They should be prosecuted as the criminals they are, and the money the government has been giving to them should to to other women's clinics (of which there are many).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you would be too much of a pussy to not answer those questions.  And, actually, that is the issue.  Is it unethical for an organization to be reimbursed for costs associated with the collection, preservation and transportation of human tissue.  You do believe that there is no difference between a fetus at 15 weeks gestation and a fully grown human, right? They are both people entitled to full protection of the law, according to you.  Then why is it not appropriate to apply the same principles to the retrieval and use of all human tissue, whenever and wherever obtained?  If Planned Parenthood only received reimbursement for their actual cost and did not alter the procedures in a manner that increased the risk to the woman, you would be ok with using fetal tissue in research, right?  Since the government gives no money that is used for abortion, why would you deny Planned Parenthood the money they use to provide contraception; to provide pap smears and mammograms; to treat sexually transmitted diseases?  Why end support for those things?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other clinics do all that stuff, much better. And they don't sell dead babies or work with pimps and human traffickers to abuse women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very few clinics do that "stuff".  And stop with the pimp and sex trafficker nonsense.  As much of a moron as you appeared before, that crap makes you seem really disturbed.  It is not true and you can offer nothing to prove it is true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Planned Parenthood has fired a New Jersey staffer who appeared in an undercover video coaching two people on how to get reproductive health services for their underage sex workers.
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/02/planned-parenthood-fires-employee-caught-engaging-in-nefarious-behavior-in-undercover-video/#ixzz3ip8fbIX7
Click to expand...

What part of they fired her for violating their own rules and policies are you too stupid to understand?   Of course, since they were not prostitutes and he was not a pimp, you have yet to offer any proof that they have ever worked with anyone who abused women.

"Live Action President Lila Rose says this should be Planned Parenthood’s death knell."

Read more: Planned Parenthood fires employee caught engaging in nefarious behavior in undercover video The Daily Caller

How'd that prediction turn out?


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


>


So, now you are calling that fifteen year old girl a sex trafficker?  What part of "no laws were broken" are you too dense to understand?  What part of parental consent is not required in Washington do you not understand? And what does this have to do with fetal tissue research?


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


>


Right.  You would prefer a world where girls in their situation have their pimp pay the Kermit Gosnell's of the world butcher them in a back alley.


----------



## sakinago

paddymurphy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> One set of organs are coming from unfortunate unwanted death, the other organs are coming from someone who volunteered death for another, and then said go ahed take the organs. The difference is the cause of death. If you support that so much then we should force those we give the death penalty to, to harvest their organs
> 
> 
> 
> So, then, again, it is not that you oppose the use of fetal tissue or the reimbursement to Planned Parenthood for the costs of their obtaining that tissue. You object to abortion.  A couple of weeks ago a mother whose young daughter died donated her organs to save the life of a little boy who was near death.  I guess since that child could not legally consent you think that it was terrible for the parent to donate those organs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I object to the abortion, I've been saying that for a long time now on this thread. And again that mother did not volunteer her child to die.
> 
> So... Is it ok to pull schiavo off life support if doctor says x amount of months and she'll be ok
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what Schiavo you are talking about but the one in Florida was brain dead and had no chance of recovery.  So, yes, it was ok to allow her to die with some dignity rather than keep her body alive contrary to her wishes.  Too bad her parents did not love her as much as her husband did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the doctor looking over schiavo said give her x amount of months on life support and she'll will be fine, small chance she won't make it, but very good chance she'll be fine. Does the husband still have the right to take her off life support
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  If the doctor tells a husband that his wife will be fine, of course you cannot remove her from life support.  That, of course, is not remotely close to what happened with Terri Schiavo.  She was brain dead and had been so for years.  No doctor who examined her told her or her parents that she would be fine; that she only need a couple more months, after several years, on life support.
Click to expand...

So why is it ok to then do that to a baby, but not ok for hypothetical schiavo. That baby on mothers "life support a large majority of the time will end up just fine


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you are calling that fifteen year old girl a sex trafficker?  What part of "no laws were broken" are you too dense to understand?  What part of parental consent is not required in Washington do you not understand? And what does this have to do with fetal tissue research?
Click to expand...

 Er..no, I did not call a 15 y.o. a sex trafficker. Perhaps you need a nap. Or a drink?


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  You would prefer a world where girls in their situation have their pimp pay the Kermit Gosnell's of the world butcher them in a back alley.
Click to expand...

 You moron, Planned Parenthood kept Gosnell's coffers and coffins full...they're the ones that told people to go to him. If they hadn't, he wouldn't have had any clientele.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  You would prefer a world where girls in their situation have their pimp pay the Kermit Gosnell's of the world butcher them in a back alley.
Click to expand...

 You're okay with the abortionists conspiring with human traffickers to keep the girls profitable, then? And you're okay with falsifying medical records to protect the traffickers?

What a stupid question, lol. Of course you are, we all know it.


----------



## koshergrl

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> Like you give a rat's ass about women.  You would charge them all with murder and lock them up, if not kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I would charge the monsters who cut them up, kill their babies and abuse them in jail. I don't believe in the death penalty, even for butchers.
Click to expand...

 I see creepy giggling psycho is still being creepy...cuz abortion and the abuse of women and girls is so funny and all....


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> Like you give a rat's ass about women.  You would charge them all with murder and lock them up, if not kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I would charge the monsters who cut them up, kill their babies and abuse them in jail. I don't believe in the death penalty, even for butchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see creepy giggling psycho is still being creepy...cuz abortion and the abuse of women and girls is so funny and all....
Click to expand...

You're getting funnier and more hysterical.
And I'm getting drunk thanks to your foam-flecked ranting.

That's six 'baby-killers', five 'butchers' and a 'harvesting' in the last two pages!
I'm going to fall over soon.



> This could be a good drinking game on a Friday.
> The players each pick a word and everytime koshergrl mentions it that person has to drink.
> I'll pick 'babykillers'...hell, I'll be drunk in no time!
> 'Butchers' would be another good one.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*States Try To Dig Up Planned Parenthood Violations, Fail Miserably*
*Probes in Georgia, Indiana, Massachusetts and South Dakota have uncovered no evidence of wrongdoing.*
States Try To Dig Up Planned Parenthood Violations Fail Miserably


----------



## koshergrl

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> Like you give a rat's ass about women.  You would charge them all with murder and lock them up, if not kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I would charge the monsters who cut them up, kill their babies and abuse them in jail. I don't believe in the death penalty, even for butchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see creepy giggling psycho is still being creepy...cuz abortion and the abuse of women and girls is so funny and all....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're getting funnier and more hysterical.
> And I'm getting drunk thanks to your foam-flecked ranting.
> 
> That's six 'baby-killers', five 'butchers' and a 'harvesting' in the last two pages!
> I'm going to fall over soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could be a good drinking game on a Friday.
> The players each pick a word and everytime koshergrl mentions it that person has to drink.
> I'll pick 'babykillers'...hell, I'll be drunk in no time!
> 'Butchers' would be another good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
I'm sure you'll drink to just about anything.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

koshergrl said:


> You're okay with the abortionists conspiring with human traffickers to keep the girls profitable, then?



*HOAX VIDEO EXPOSED: Planned Parenthood Already
Reported "Sex Trafficking" To FBI
...*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

koshergrl said:


> I'm sure you'll drink to just about anything.



I am sure you will post any god damn Right wing fake videos 

*Why the latest conservative hidden-video trick to embarrass liberals has fizzled.*
The Lila Rose Planned Parenthood video sting Why didn t it work


----------



## idb

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idb is cackling mindlessly at the concept of abused women being lied to and forced into the stirrups, I see. You see the type of monsters support planned parenthood. They know what transpires and they glory in it.
> 
> 
> 
> Like you give a rat's ass about women.  You would charge them all with murder and lock them up, if not kill them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I would charge the monsters who cut them up, kill their babies and abuse them in jail. I don't believe in the death penalty, even for butchers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see creepy giggling psycho is still being creepy...cuz abortion and the abuse of women and girls is so funny and all....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're getting funnier and more hysterical.
> And I'm getting drunk thanks to your foam-flecked ranting.
> 
> That's six 'baby-killers', five 'butchers' and a 'harvesting' in the last two pages!
> I'm going to fall over soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This could be a good drinking game on a Friday.
> The players each pick a word and everytime koshergrl mentions it that person has to drink.
> I'll pick 'babykillers'...hell, I'll be drunk in no time!
> 'Butchers' would be another good one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you'll drink to just about anything.
Click to expand...

True that!


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, you're too slow to keep up. Earlier, you said there was an 80% chance of a 27 week old embryo of being born alive. Now you claim it's 96%. It's not. Where do you pull this nonsense from? And where have I changed my position? I've always said the people involved should get to choose for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 27 week PREMIE has about an 80% of making it. Now numbers on miscarriages and such are difficult to give just one number, bc of factors like has the mother had a miscarriage before and etc.
> 
> But if you have different numbers then by all means post them and apply them to Sherri Tiavo, see if it's ok to kill her off. We can even do a poll on usmb see who thinks it's ok to for the husband to let her starve to death.  So far all you have done is try to split hairs on the numbers in this scenario, claim they're crazy, but not post why they're crazy. So be my guest. At least winter born could actually make intelligent arguments, I think I poked holes in those arguments, but they were based on intelligence, not splitting hairs on numbers without rebuttals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't keep your story straight. First you say a 27 week old embryo has a 98% chance .... then you say 80% ... then you say 96% ... then you say 80% again.
> 
> Let me know when you agree with yourself on a single number and then we can resume this......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's because as I've said many times the numbers don't really matter, it's an ethics question, not a math problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
Click to expand...

I believe in choice. I'm consistent.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you think about it matters to no one but you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So even after being asked direct question and not to quote some article you are clueless about you did just exactly that with an ad hominem for good measure.
> 
> It is apparent an intelligent conversation is beyond your abilities.
> 
> No it is not just me but those who read this thread in silence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I provided you with the actual abstract from the article that Ben Carson wrote.  And, you lying prick, I answered your question.  Neither your nor I are qualified to discuss the scientific basis of the research.  So, I provided you with what those who are experts have said about the necessity of the research.  Can you offer anything from an expert in this field that disputes the necessity of such research? No?  Then shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you do that. Just accept blindly what people you idolize tell you.
> 
> And why do you idolize them? You idolize them because they use the product of abortion and dead babies' flesh. You think that makes them special.
> 
> Yuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People I idolize. There are several doctors quote in there who do the research.  Dr. Carson did the research and defends it. You know nothing about the research.  You don't care how much it can help.  You don't care about women being victimized.  Any lie you can tell to achieve your goal of banning reproductive freedom for women is ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes let's cannibalize our unwanted young to increase our own life span.  What a wonderful society we are
Click to expand...

It's either use them to better medical science or flush 'em. I vote for medical science. Seems you're for flushing them.


----------



## Faun

DrDoomNGloom said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catchy phrase, "reproductive freedom" in an abortion thread ...............
> 
> Talk about irony ...................
> 
> 
> 
> You have a problem with freedom?  You pricks want to ban abortion, birth control, sex education and anything that might give a woman control over her reproductive life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Keep your legs shut, has worked since the creation of time, no one can take that.
> 
> I see nothing but ad hominems which I am going to start flagging.
Click to expand...

Nah, women don't have to keep their legs shut. That's their choice. Just as it's their choice to medically have their pregnancy terminated if that's what they want to do. Best part? All you get to do is cry about it.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 27 week PREMIE has about an 80% of making it. Now numbers on miscarriages and such are difficult to give just one number, bc of factors like has the mother had a miscarriage before and etc.
> 
> But if you have different numbers then by all means post them and apply them to Sherri Tiavo, see if it's ok to kill her off. We can even do a poll on usmb see who thinks it's ok to for the husband to let her starve to death.  So far all you have done is try to split hairs on the numbers in this scenario, claim they're crazy, but not post why they're crazy. So be my guest. At least winter born could actually make intelligent arguments, I think I poked holes in those arguments, but they were based on intelligence, not splitting hairs on numbers without rebuttals
> 
> 
> 
> You can't keep your story straight. First you say a 27 week old embryo has a 98% chance .... then you say 80% ... then you say 96% ... then you say 80% again.
> 
> Let me know when you agree with yourself on a single number and then we can resume this......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's because as I've said many times the numbers don't really matter, it's an ethics question, not a math problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
Click to expand...

Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't keep your story straight. First you say a 27 week old embryo has a 98% chance .... then you say 80% ... then you say 96% ... then you say 80% again.
> 
> Let me know when you agree with yourself on a single number and then we can resume this......
> 
> 
> 
> It's because as I've said many times the numbers don't really matter, it's an ethics question, not a math problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
Click to expand...



States Try To Dig Up Planned Parenthood Violations Fail Miserably

There is large support for PP from the common person, medical community to state and national leaders

You want to blame someone for killing children or disposing of body
Baby Doe case Authorities still don t know the identity of the young girl found dead in Boston weeks ago.

I think we can all agree on this one.


----------



## koshergrl

aris2chat said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because as I've said many times the numbers don't really matter, it's an ethics question, not a math problem.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> States Try To Dig Up Planned Parenthood Violations Fail Miserably
> 
> There is large support for PP from the common person, medical community to state and national leaders
Click to expand...

 No there isn't. The American people hate planned parenthood and have been trying to run it out of business since it was first shoved down our throats by bad law.


----------



## sakinago

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> States Try To Dig Up Planned Parenthood Violations Fail Miserably
> 
> There is large support for PP from the common person, medical community to state and national leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there isn't. The American people hate planned parenthood and have been trying to run it out of business since it was first shoved down our throats by bad law.
Click to expand...

And by the vile woman Margaret Sanger. If the hitler youth was still around today and gave out mammograms  (PP just refers mammograms), no one would support it. Sanger believed that if you weren't deemed worthy by her, you should live on an island or be sterilized, especially if you were black


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't keep your story straight. First you say a 27 week old embryo has a 98% chance .... then you say 80% ... then you say 96% ... then you say 80% again.
> 
> Let me know when you agree with yourself on a single number and then we can resume this......
> 
> 
> 
> It's because as I've said many times the numbers don't really matter, it's an ethics question, not a math problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
Click to expand...

Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.

That's what I support.


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> States Try To Dig Up Planned Parenthood Violations Fail Miserably
> 
> There is large support for PP from the common person, medical community to state and national leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there isn't. The American people hate planned parenthood and have been trying to run it out of business since it was first shoved down our throats by bad law.
Click to expand...

Stop lying. You've been shown polls indicating a majority of those polled are in favor of PP. Even after these latest videos have come out.


----------



## aris2chat

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because as I've said many times the numbers don't really matter, it's an ethics question, not a math problem.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.
> 
> That's what I support.
Click to expand...


Many people have living will and health directive so they won't end up on life support.  I had to give permission for an attempt to implant a stint in my mother, but they couldn't.  We knew she was not a candidate for open heart at her age.  Now we are just making her as comfortable as possible.  She fights about everything.  Sorrow when the mind goes.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Stem express exits stage left...............but ...but arent they proud of their accomplishments


----------



## Katzndogz

aris2chat said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.
> 
> That's what I support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many people have living will and health directive so they won't end up on life support.  I had to give permission for an attempt to implant a stint in my mother, but they couldn't.  We knew she was not a candidate for open heart at her age.  Now we are just making her as comfortable as possible.  She fights about everything.  Sorrow when the mind goes.
Click to expand...

The physician's assistant in my doctor's office is a big time euthanasia liberal.  She demanded that I sign a health directive.   I said I wanted everything.  All measures no matter how fruitless.  I thought her head would come off.  I wasn't supposed to make that choice.  Then she demanded my son's contact information.   Maybe he would rather I died.  I wouldn't give it to her.  That's an invasion of privacy.  His privacy.  

I just love fucking with liberals like that.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Dylan Thomas, 1914 - 1953


----------



## aris2chat

Tipsycatlover said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.
> 
> That's what I support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many people have living will and health directive so they won't end up on life support.  I had to give permission for an attempt to implant a stint in my mother, but they couldn't.  We knew she was not a candidate for open heart at her age.  Now we are just making her as comfortable as possible.  She fights about everything.  Sorrow when the mind goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The physician's assistant in my doctor's office is a big time euthanasia liberal.  She demanded that I sign a health directive.   I said I wanted everything.  All measures no matter how fruitless.  I thought her head would come off.  I wasn't supposed to make that choice.  Then she demanded my son's contact information.   Maybe he would rather I died.  I wouldn't give it to her.  That's an invasion of privacy.  His privacy.
> 
> I just love fucking with liberals like that.
Click to expand...


More and more people see the harm of being plugged to a machine, and realize that is not life.  Why should people be afraid of their god if they believe it is so great?  Why would they not prefer quality of life or death that will bring them to their god?  What are they hoping for being kept in stasis?  Do they consider their family. or do they want to hurt them?

Even if one is willing to be put on life support, they should put some limit on the length of time.  Body just continues to decay, so what is the point?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Whatever doesn't kill them makes them crazier:



> Steve King Explains How He Wants To Destroy Planned Parenthood Like ACORN Submitted by Miranda Blue on Friday, 8/14/2015 2:36 pm
> 
> *Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said yesterday that he hopes that Congress defunds Planned Parenthood before there is a “full investigation” into its fetal tissue donation program,* saying that Congress’ response to recent attacks the women’s health group should resemble its defunding of the community organizing group ACORN in 2009. The recent series of videos smearing Planned Parenthood have drawn comparisons to right-wing activist James O’Keefe’s heavily edited videos charging ACORN with various wrongdoing, including voter fraud and misuse of federal funds. Congress moved quickly to defund the organization before the charges levied against it began to collapse.
> 
> The current Planned Parenthood smear is clearly modeled on the work of O’Keefe, a friend of the activists who created the videos. “*When we hear people say, well we can’t defund Planned Parenthood because we don’t know all of the places that they’re getting money from and we can’t be passing judgment on this until we do a full investigation, I completely disagree with that,”* King told Iowa talk radio host Simon Conway - See more at: Steve King Explains How He Wants To Destroy Planned Parenthood Like ACORN Right Wing Watch






> Linda Harvey: 'It's A Very Dark And Black Place That We’re Heading For' As God Judges America For Gay Rights Submitted by Miranda Blue on Friday, 8/14/2015 3:16 pm
> 
> Mission America’s Linda Harvey stopped by the radio program hosted by Cleveland Right to Life’s Molly Smith last week, where the two warned that God’s judgment is already beginning to befall America thanks to gay pride parades and Planned Parenthood. Smith told Harvey about a recent promotional video put out by the Cuyahoga County GOP that features some vaguely rainbow colors in the background, which she found “very upsetting,” along with the *failure of Republican leaders in Congress to defund Planned Parenthood*. - See more at: Linda Harvey It s A Very Dark And Black Place That We re Heading For As God Judges America For Gay Rights Right Wing Watch






> What’s behind the conspiracy theory about “coerced” abortions ?
> 
> So the amount of *conspiracy theorist bullshit around Planned Parenthood is growing dramatically*, as Fox News is adding the anti-choice myth that women don’t choose abortion, but are forced into it by an evil feminist/male pervert/gynecologist conspiracy to make women, uh, “sexually available”:
> 
> *Penny Nance of Concerned Women For America: “Planned Parenthood is not a safe place for vulnerable women*. It is a place that exploits women. And now we know, coerces them into abortion and sells their baby parts.”
> 
> She may be busting out the “now we know” language, but this conspiracy theory that holds that women don’t choose abortion but are tricked into it by sex cultists has been popular in anti-choice circles for a long time. Yes, they really do believe that women who schedule abortions show up and are surprised when they doctor is like, “Tah-dah! You are no longer pregnant.”
> 
> *This claim that women do not choose abortion, but are coerced into it, was drafted for politically convenient reasons. Anti-choicers realize that by claiming that abortion is “murder”, they are arguing that **3 out of 10 women in the United States* should be in prison serving a life sentence—or even, by their own measure, be slated for a death sentence. What s behind the conspiracy theory about coerced abortions


----------



## JFish123

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

JFish123 said:


> View attachment 47440
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening


----------



## JFish123

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47440
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening
Click to expand...








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HenryBHough

Tipsycatlover said:


> I just love fucking with liberals like that.



Oh, WOW!

Thazz gonna drive up your health insurance premiums!


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> States Try To Dig Up Planned Parenthood Violations Fail Miserably
> 
> There is large support for PP from the common person, medical community to state and national leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there isn't. The American people hate planned parenthood and have been trying to run it out of business since it was first shoved down our throats by bad law.
Click to expand...

What law shoved it down our throats?  And cite to one public opinion poll that demonstrates that Americans want PP out of business.  Of course, you cannot, cause you lie.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> States Try To Dig Up Planned Parenthood Violations Fail Miserably
> 
> There is large support for PP from the common person, medical community to state and national leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there isn't. The American people hate planned parenthood and have been trying to run it out of business since it was first shoved down our throats by bad law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law shoved it down our throats?  And cite to one public opinion poll that demonstrates that Americans want PP out of business.  Of course, you cannot, cause you lie.
Click to expand...

Rvw, ignoramus. Sorry on the poll thing, I recognize polls as biased garbage that establish nothing. I've known that since my first boxed, front page newspaper article 30 years ago. I was assigned a fluff piece, a poll of local college kids' presidential voting intentions. I intentionally polled non political twits who were voting for a candidate based on their dad's intended vote. The Dean was furious and called the editor and wrote a letter. My editor protected my identity and refused to retract. And now I understand polls.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

JFish123 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47440
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 47443
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was  used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:



> It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). * Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with **information** about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to **government programs** that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms*. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)
> 
> 
> Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms


----------



## SassyIrishLass

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47440
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 47443
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was  used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). * Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with **information** about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to **government programs** that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms*. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)
> 
> 
> Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?


----------



## JFish123

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47440
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 47443
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was  used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). * Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with **information** about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to **government programs** that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms*. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)
> 
> 
> Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So they don't do mammograms. So what in the post was wrong again?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JFish123

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> States Try To Dig Up Planned Parenthood Violations Fail Miserably
> 
> There is large support for PP from the common person, medical community to state and national leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there isn't. The American people hate planned parenthood and have been trying to run it out of business since it was first shoved down our throats by bad law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law shoved it down our throats?  And cite to one public opinion poll that demonstrates that Americans want PP out of business.  Of course, you cannot, cause you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rvw, ignoramus. Sorry on the poll thing, I recognize polls as biased garbage that establish nothing. I've known that since my first boxed, front page newspaper article 30 years ago. I was assigned a fluff piece, a poll of local college kids' presidential voting intentions. I intentionally polled non political twits who were voting for a candidate based on their dad's intended vote. The Dean was furious and called the editor and wrote a letter. My editor protected my identity and refused to retract. And now I understand polls.
Click to expand...

So, you really are so stupid as to believe that polling means just asking a bunch of people you happen to come acoess a question.


SassyIrishLass said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47440
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 47443
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was  used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). * Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with **information** about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to **government programs** that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms*. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)
> 
> 
> Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?
Click to expand...

Because it is easier to do that than it is to deal with lying assholes like you.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> States Try To Dig Up Planned Parenthood Violations Fail Miserably
> 
> There is large support for PP from the common person, medical community to state and national leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there isn't. The American people hate planned parenthood and have been trying to run it out of business since it was first shoved down our throats by bad law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law shoved it down our throats?  And cite to one public opinion poll that demonstrates that Americans want PP out of business.  Of course, you cannot, cause you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rvw, ignoramus. Sorry on the poll thing, I recognize polls as biased garbage that establish nothing. I've known that since my first boxed, front page newspaper article 30 years ago. I was assigned a fluff piece, a poll of local college kids' presidential voting intentions. I intentionally polled non political twits who were voting for a candidate based on their dad's intended vote. The Dean was furious and called the editor and wrote a letter. My editor protected my identity and refused to retract. And now I understand polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you really are so stupid as to believe that polling means just asking a bunch of people you happen to come acoess a question.
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47440
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 47443
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was  used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). * Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with **information** about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to **government programs** that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms*. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)
> 
> 
> Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it is easier to do that than it is to deal with lying assholes like you.
Click to expand...


You keep using that word lying and I keep asking for proof. Do you ever tire of being a failure?


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> States Try To Dig Up Planned Parenthood Violations Fail Miserably
> 
> There is large support for PP from the common person, medical community to state and national leaders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No there isn't. The American people hate planned parenthood and have been trying to run it out of business since it was first shoved down our throats by bad law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law shoved it down our throats?  And cite to one public opinion poll that demonstrates that Americans want PP out of business.  Of course, you cannot, cause you lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rvw, ignoramus. Sorry on the poll thing, I recognize polls as biased garbage that establish nothing. I've known that since my first boxed, front page newspaper article 30 years ago. I was assigned a fluff piece, a poll of local college kids' presidential voting intentions. I intentionally polled non political twits who were voting for a candidate based on their dad's intended vote. The Dean was furious and called the editor and wrote a letter. My editor protected my identity and refused to retract. And now I understand polls.
Click to expand...

Roe was not a law. It was a court decision. And planned parenthood existed long before 1973. And you asking a dozen people you happen to encounter is not a scientific poll, though it is not surprising you are stupid enough to think it is. If polls are not reliable, how do you know what Americans think about planned parenthood?


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because as I've said many times the numbers don't really matter, it's an ethics question, not a math problem.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.
> 
> That's what I support.
Click to expand...

If she has the ability to recover how can she be considered dead?


----------



## JFish123

Planned Parenthood wants you to know this 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

JFish123 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47440
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 47443
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was  used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). * Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with **information** about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to **government programs** that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms*. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)
> 
> 
> Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So they don't do mammograms. So what in the post was wrong again?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Common don't play stupid. They play an important role in breast cancer screening include assistance with the cost. And you conveniently fail to mention the other services that they provide. Blatantly dishonest!


----------



## JFish123

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47440
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 47443
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was  used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). * Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with **information** about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to **government programs** that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms*. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)
> 
> 
> Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So they don't do mammograms. So what in the post was wrong again?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Common don't play stupid. They play an important role in breast cancer screening include assistance with the cost. And you conveniently fail to mention the other services that they provide. Blatantly dishonest!
Click to expand...

And no other providers in all of America can do the exact same thing? I guess PP is the only apple on the tree then...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RodISHI

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47440
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening
Click to expand...

 If women do not want to have children there are other alternatives for them and the men who are getting them pregnant. Common sense if you want to play like your making babies and don't really want the babies get fixed.

Mammograms are barbaric and cause more damage than they help. Go to the source of what is causing the breast cancer and create the preventive measures there first. Planned parenthood should be defunded along with all the other so called society fixers where a few are trying to determine and set a standard for what others should be thinking, are doing or how they should be living their own lives.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's because you don't have a clue on what you're speaking about.
> 
> Oh, and get this ... you don't define ethics.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.
> 
> That's what I support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If she has the ability to recover how can she be considered dead?
Click to expand...

That's your imaginary example. Can you cite a single actual case in the entire history of the U.S. where a person on life support was taken off and allowed to die following a prognosis of a full and complete recovery?


----------



## sakinago

Tipsycatlover said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.
> 
> That's what I support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many people have living will and health directive so they won't end up on life support.  I had to give permission for an attempt to implant a stint in my mother, but they couldn't.  We knew she was not a candidate for open heart at her age.  Now we are just making her as comfortable as possible.  She fights about everything.  Sorrow when the mind goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The physician's assistant in my doctor's office is a big time euthanasia liberal.  She demanded that I sign a health directive.   I said I wanted everything.  All measures no matter how fruitless.  I thought her head would come off.  I wasn't supposed to make that choice.  Then she demanded my son's contact information.   Maybe he would rather I died.  I wouldn't give it to her.  That's an invasion of privacy.  His privacy.
> 
> I just love fucking with liberals like that.
Click to expand...

That's what socialism brings, a false sense of limited resources. she thinks that you wanting every measure is wasting her and everyone else's resources . That's why she's angry


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.
> 
> That's what I support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If she has the ability to recover how can she be considered dead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your imaginary example. Can you cite a single actual case in the entire history of the U.S. where a person on life support was taken off and allowed to die following a prognosis of a full and complete recovery?
Click to expand...

Abortion


----------



## koshergrl

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47440
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening
Click to expand...

No, it's not about abortion. It's about the criminal racketeering that flourishes under the PP logo.


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47440
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 47443
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was  used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). * Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with **information** about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to **government programs** that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms*. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)
> 
> 
> Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?
Click to expand...

Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

koshergrl said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47440
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 47443
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was  used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). * Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with **information** about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to **government programs** that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms*. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)
> 
> 
> Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.
Click to expand...


That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haha I never said I did, and please please post your own numbers. You want to refute and argue so much, well then tell me otherwise.
> 
> And can you confirm your belief in the scenario that the husband should be allowed to kill Sherri.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.
> 
> That's what I support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If she has the ability to recover how can she be considered dead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your imaginary example. Can you cite a single actual case in the entire history of the U.S. where a person on life support was taken off and allowed to die following a prognosis of a full and complete recovery?
Click to expand...

And that's what I am saying, no one would support that because it is murder


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.
> 
> That's what I support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If she has the ability to recover how can she be considered dead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your imaginary example. Can you cite a single actual case in the entire history of the U.S. where a person on life support was taken off and allowed to die following a prognosis of a full and complete recovery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Abortion
Click to expand...

I'm talking about a woman on life support. But then you knew that. If you're talking about abortion, then we're back to the, it's the choice of the pregnant woman.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in choice. I'm consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> Well thank you for being consistent, glad to hear you hold the very unpopular view of killing off someone who will probably be perfectly healthy in x amount of months. This is what you are saying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well if you're talking about an embryo, that is the choice of the woman carrying it. If you're talking about someone on life support, that is the choice of the person on life support or their next of kin had they not made that choice themselves.
> 
> That's what I support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If she has the ability to recover how can she be considered dead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your imaginary example. Can you cite a single actual case in the entire history of the U.S. where a person on life support was taken off and allowed to die following a prognosis of a full and complete recovery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's what I am saying, no one would support that because it is murder
Click to expand...

The law provides exemptions to the taking of another's life. That does not make it murder.


----------



## JFish123

DESTROYING ABORTION ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENT #1: The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
ANSWER: This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive.  How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?   
At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?

ARGUMENT #2: The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
ANSWER: But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
When does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
It is animals who are owned--not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.

ARGUMENT #3: If the tissue is not human but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
ANSWER: An internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature, so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
They are different in nature because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.

ARGUMENT #4: The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
ANSWER: If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type from the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it right.








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faun

JFish123 said:


> DESTROYING ABORTION ARGUMENTS
> 
> ARGUMENT #1: The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
> ANSWER: This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive.  How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
> This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
> At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
> If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?
> 
> ARGUMENT #2: The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
> ANSWER: But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
> When does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
> It is animals who are owned--not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.
> 
> ARGUMENT #3: If the tissue is not human but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
> ANSWER: An internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature, so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
> They are different in nature because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.
> 
> ARGUMENT #4: The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
> ANSWER: If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
> It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
> Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
> The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type from the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
> People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
> Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You forgot to mention .... it's unconstitutional to force women to be pregnant against their will.


----------



## koshergrl

SassyIrishLass said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is not about abortion. It's about a smear campaign to deprive women of  access to reproductive health care and  cancer screening
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47443
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was  used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). * Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with **information** about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to **government programs** that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms*. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)
> 
> 
> Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.
Click to expand...

Yup


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 47443
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was  used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true in a literal sense that Planned Parenthood health centers do not themselves conduct mammograms (a procedure which requires specialized equipment and expertise to use it). * Planned Parenthood offers comprehensive breast health care management, which includes manual breast exams as well as patient education on breast health. That care management program includes providing women with **information** about mammograms, referring them to health centers where they can obtain mammograms, and assisting them in covering the costs of the procedure by referring them to **government programs** that provide free mammograms or by using grant funds to reimburse the medical providers who perform the mammograms*. (Referrals for mammograms often require the patient has undergone a breast exam within the previous year.)
> 
> 
> Read more at snopes.com Planned Parenthood Mammograms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup
Click to expand...

Nope.  They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was  used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.
Click to expand...


You really are a stupid son of a bitch


----------



## JFish123

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people are truly despicable and shameless. You take something that has a grain of truth to it and use it to spread your lies and propaganda. It's the same sleazy tactic that was  used to create those videos. You can't rely on the whole truth because that expose you for what you really are:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.
Click to expand...

When was the last abortion bombing? 1983? By someone who clearly didn't follow Jesus whatsoever. Just because someone's against PP doesn't make them a terrorist correct? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DESTROYING ABORTION ARGUMENTS
> 
> ARGUMENT #1: The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
> ANSWER: This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive.  How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
> This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
> At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
> If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?
> 
> ARGUMENT #2: The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
> ANSWER: But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
> When does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
> It is animals who are owned--not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.
> 
> ARGUMENT #3: If the tissue is not human but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
> ANSWER: An internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature, so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
> They are different in nature because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.
> 
> ARGUMENT #4: The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
> ANSWER: If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
> It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
> Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
> The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type from the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
> People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
> Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention .... it's unconstitutional to force women to be pregnant against their will.
Click to expand...

That breaks down at 3 rd trimester. And a very large majority if the time they are not getting pregnant against their will. That is what happens when you practice reproduction


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DESTROYING ABORTION ARGUMENTS
> 
> ARGUMENT #1: The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
> ANSWER: This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive.  How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
> This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
> At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
> If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?
> 
> ARGUMENT #2: The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
> ANSWER: But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
> When does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
> It is animals who are owned--not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.
> 
> ARGUMENT #3: If the tissue is not human but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
> ANSWER: An internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature, so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
> They are different in nature because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.
> 
> ARGUMENT #4: The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
> ANSWER: If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
> It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
> Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
> The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type from the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
> People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
> Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention .... it's unconstitutional to force women to be pregnant against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That breaks down at 3 rd trimester. And a very large majority if the time they are not getting pregnant against their will. That is what happens when you practice reproduction
Click to expand...

That's a reason why a risk to the woman's health is legally required for a 3rd trimester abortion.

And the reason a woman gets pregnant matters not. She can still not be forced to remain pregnant against her will. At least not during the first two trimesters.


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a stupid son of a bitch
Click to expand...

Right.  Cause no one has ever bombed an abortion clinic or targeted doctors.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

paddymurphy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a stupid son of a bitch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right.  Cause no one has ever bombed an abortion clinic or targeted doctors.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah it's rampant, happening everyday, right? I repeat, you're one stupid son of bitch....full of hyperbole and not to be taken serious


----------



## paddymurphy

JFish123 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why is Stem Express breaking ties with Murder Inc?
> 
> 
> 
> Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last abortion bombing? 1983? By someone who clearly didn't follow Jesus whatsoever. Just because someone's against PP doesn't make them a terrorist correct?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No, it does not make them a terrorist, any more than being a Muslim does.  The question was why would that company cit ties with pp.  Threats of violence and actual violence is a common tactic of abortion opponents.  And, no, idiot, the last act of violence towards an abortion provider was not 30 years ago. That is when it started.

According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[17] The _New York Times_ also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[23] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[24] Incidents have included:


*May 26, 1983:* Joseph Grace set the Hillcrest clinic in Norfolk, Virginia ablaze. He was arrested while sleeping in his van a few blocks from the clinic when an alert patrol officer noticed the smell of kerosene.[25]
*May 12, 1984:* Two men entered a Birmingham, Alabama clinic shortly after a lone woman opened the doors at 7:45 am. Forcing their way into the clinic, one of the men threatened the woman if she tried to prevent the attack while the other, wielding a sledgehammer, did between $7,500 and $8,000 of damage to suction equipment. The man who damaged the equipment was later identified as Father Edward Markley. Father Markley is a Benedictine Monk who was the Birmingham diocesan "Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities". Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and second-degree burglary. His accomplice has never been identified. Following the Birmingham incident, Markley entered the Women's Community Health Center in Huntsville Alabama, assaulting at least three clinic workers. One of the workers, Kathryn Wood received back injuries and a broken neck vertebrae. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and three counts of third-degree assault and harassment in the Huntsville attack.[26]
*December 25, 1984:* An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida, were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[27][28][29] The clinic, the Ladies Center, would later be the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994 and a firebombing in 2012.
*March 29, 1993:* Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, Montana; at around 1 a.m., an arsonist snuck onto the premises and firebombed the clinic. The perpetrator, a Washington man, was ultimately caught, convicted and imprisoned. The facility was a near-total loss, but all of the patients' records, though damaged, survived the fire in metal file cabinets.[30][31][32]
*May 21, 1998:* Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.[33]
*October 1999:* Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[34]
*May 28, 2000:* An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire, resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved.[35][36][37] This was the second arson at the clinic.[38]
*September 30, 2000:* John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building, who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[39]
*June 11, 2001:* An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington, destroyed a wall, resulting in $6,000 in damages.[34][40]
*July 4, 2005:* A clinic Palm Beach, Florida, was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[34]
*December 12, 2005:* Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a "memorial lamp" for an abortion she had had there.[41]
*September 11, 2006* David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[42] _Time_ magazine listed the incident in a "Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots" list.[43]
*April 25, 2007:* A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[44]
*May 9, 2007:* An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[45]
*December 6, 2007:* Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Baca's girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[46][47]
*January 22, 2009* Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness[48] rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[49]
*January 1, 2012* Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida, with a Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during one of the frequent anti-abortion protests there. The clinic had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.[50]
*April 1, 2012* A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that damaged one of the clinic's examination rooms. No injuries were reported.
*April 11, 2013* A Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Indiana, was vandalized with an axe.[51]


----------



## paddymurphy

SassyIrishLass said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a stupid son of a bitch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right.  Cause no one has ever bombed an abortion clinic or targeted doctors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah it's rampant, happening everyday, right? I repeat, you're one stupid son of bitch....full of hyperbole and not to be taken serious
Click to expand...

Never said it happened every day.  But you assholes are so unhinged, why should they endanger the lives of their employees?


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last abortion bombing? 1983? By someone who clearly didn't follow Jesus whatsoever. Just because someone's against PP doesn't make them a terrorist correct?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it does not make them a terrorist, any more than being a Muslim does.  The question was why would that company cit ties with pp.  Threats of violence and actual violence is a common tactic of abortion opponents.  And, no, idiot, the last act of violence towards an abortion provider was not 30 years ago. That is when it started.
> 
> According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[17] The _New York Times_ also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[23] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[24] Incidents have included:
> 
> 
> *May 26, 1983:* Joseph Grace set the Hillcrest clinic in Norfolk, Virginia ablaze. He was arrested while sleeping in his van a few blocks from the clinic when an alert patrol officer noticed the smell of kerosene.[25]
> *May 12, 1984:* Two men entered a Birmingham, Alabama clinic shortly after a lone woman opened the doors at 7:45 am. Forcing their way into the clinic, one of the men threatened the woman if she tried to prevent the attack while the other, wielding a sledgehammer, did between $7,500 and $8,000 of damage to suction equipment. The man who damaged the equipment was later identified as Father Edward Markley. Father Markley is a Benedictine Monk who was the Birmingham diocesan "Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities". Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and second-degree burglary. His accomplice has never been identified. Following the Birmingham incident, Markley entered the Women's Community Health Center in Huntsville Alabama, assaulting at least three clinic workers. One of the workers, Kathryn Wood received back injuries and a broken neck vertebrae. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and three counts of third-degree assault and harassment in the Huntsville attack.[26]
> *December 25, 1984:* An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida, were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[27][28][29] The clinic, the Ladies Center, would later be the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994 and a firebombing in 2012.
> *March 29, 1993:* Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, Montana; at around 1 a.m., an arsonist snuck onto the premises and firebombed the clinic. The perpetrator, a Washington man, was ultimately caught, convicted and imprisoned. The facility was a near-total loss, but all of the patients' records, though damaged, survived the fire in metal file cabinets.[30][31][32]
> *May 21, 1998:* Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.[33]
> *October 1999:* Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[34]
> *May 28, 2000:* An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire, resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved.[35][36][37] This was the second arson at the clinic.[38]
> *September 30, 2000:* John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building, who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[39]
> *June 11, 2001:* An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington, destroyed a wall, resulting in $6,000 in damages.[34][40]
> *July 4, 2005:* A clinic Palm Beach, Florida, was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[34]
> *December 12, 2005:* Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a "memorial lamp" for an abortion she had had there.[41]
> *September 11, 2006* David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[42] _Time_ magazine listed the incident in a "Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots" list.[43]
> *April 25, 2007:* A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[44]
> *May 9, 2007:* An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[45]
> *December 6, 2007:* Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Baca's girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[46][47]
> *January 22, 2009* Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness[48] rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[49]
> *January 1, 2012* Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida, with a Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during one of the frequent anti-abortion protests there. The clinic had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.[50]
> *April 1, 2012* A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that damaged one of the clinic's examination rooms. No injuries were reported.
> *April 11, 2013* A Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Indiana, was vandalized with an axe.[51]
Click to expand...

Wow you put a lot off effort into dressing up lies to protect unrestricted access to and abuse of women. Are you a pimp?


----------



## JFish123

paddymurphy said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they keep better records and they know exactly what PP does....and they do not want to be subpoenaed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last abortion bombing? 1983? By someone who clearly didn't follow Jesus whatsoever. Just because someone's against PP doesn't make them a terrorist correct?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it does not make them a terrorist, any more than being a Muslim does.  The question was why would that company cit ties with pp.  Threats of violence and actual violence is a common tactic of abortion opponents.  And, no, idiot, the last act of violence towards an abortion provider was not 30 years ago. That is when it started.
> 
> According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[17] The _New York Times_ also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[23] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[24] Incidents have included:
> 
> 
> *May 26, 1983:* Joseph Grace set the Hillcrest clinic in Norfolk, Virginia ablaze. He was arrested while sleeping in his van a few blocks from the clinic when an alert patrol officer noticed the smell of kerosene.[25]
> *May 12, 1984:* Two men entered a Birmingham, Alabama clinic shortly after a lone woman opened the doors at 7:45 am. Forcing their way into the clinic, one of the men threatened the woman if she tried to prevent the attack while the other, wielding a sledgehammer, did between $7,500 and $8,000 of damage to suction equipment. The man who damaged the equipment was later identified as Father Edward Markley. Father Markley is a Benedictine Monk who was the Birmingham diocesan "Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities". Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and second-degree burglary. His accomplice has never been identified. Following the Birmingham incident, Markley entered the Women's Community Health Center in Huntsville Alabama, assaulting at least three clinic workers. One of the workers, Kathryn Wood received back injuries and a broken neck vertebrae. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and three counts of third-degree assault and harassment in the Huntsville attack.[26]
> *December 25, 1984:* An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida, were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[27][28][29] The clinic, the Ladies Center, would later be the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994 and a firebombing in 2012.
> *March 29, 1993:* Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, Montana; at around 1 a.m., an arsonist snuck onto the premises and firebombed the clinic. The perpetrator, a Washington man, was ultimately caught, convicted and imprisoned. The facility was a near-total loss, but all of the patients' records, though damaged, survived the fire in metal file cabinets.[30][31][32]
> *May 21, 1998:* Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.[33]
> *October 1999:* Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[34]
> *May 28, 2000:* An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire, resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved.[35][36][37] This was the second arson at the clinic.[38]
> *September 30, 2000:* John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building, who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[39]
> *June 11, 2001:* An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington, destroyed a wall, resulting in $6,000 in damages.[34][40]
> *July 4, 2005:* A clinic Palm Beach, Florida, was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[34]
> *December 12, 2005:* Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a "memorial lamp" for an abortion she had had there.[41]
> *September 11, 2006* David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[42] _Time_ magazine listed the incident in a "Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots" list.[43]
> *April 25, 2007:* A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[44]
> *May 9, 2007:* An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[45]
> *December 6, 2007:* Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Baca's girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[46][47]
> *January 22, 2009* Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness[48] rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[49]
> *January 1, 2012* Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida, with a Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during one of the frequent anti-abortion protests there. The clinic had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.[50]
> *April 1, 2012* A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that damaged one of the clinic's examination rooms. No injuries were reported.
> *April 11, 2013* A Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Indiana, was vandalized with an axe.[51]
Click to expand...


Yes, and there all bad. But to say the millions of pro lifers are akin to these people is ridiculous, seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## paddymurphy

JFish123 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last abortion bombing? 1983? By someone who clearly didn't follow Jesus whatsoever. Just because someone's against PP doesn't make them a terrorist correct?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it does not make them a terrorist, any more than being a Muslim does.  The question was why would that company cit ties with pp.  Threats of violence and actual violence is a common tactic of abortion opponents.  And, no, idiot, the last act of violence towards an abortion provider was not 30 years ago. That is when it started.
> 
> According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[17] The _New York Times_ also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[23] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[24] Incidents have included:
> 
> 
> *May 26, 1983:* Joseph Grace set the Hillcrest clinic in Norfolk, Virginia ablaze. He was arrested while sleeping in his van a few blocks from the clinic when an alert patrol officer noticed the smell of kerosene.[25]
> *May 12, 1984:* Two men entered a Birmingham, Alabama clinic shortly after a lone woman opened the doors at 7:45 am. Forcing their way into the clinic, one of the men threatened the woman if she tried to prevent the attack while the other, wielding a sledgehammer, did between $7,500 and $8,000 of damage to suction equipment. The man who damaged the equipment was later identified as Father Edward Markley. Father Markley is a Benedictine Monk who was the Birmingham diocesan "Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities". Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and second-degree burglary. His accomplice has never been identified. Following the Birmingham incident, Markley entered the Women's Community Health Center in Huntsville Alabama, assaulting at least three clinic workers. One of the workers, Kathryn Wood received back injuries and a broken neck vertebrae. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and three counts of third-degree assault and harassment in the Huntsville attack.[26]
> *December 25, 1984:* An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida, were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[27][28][29] The clinic, the Ladies Center, would later be the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994 and a firebombing in 2012.
> *March 29, 1993:* Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, Montana; at around 1 a.m., an arsonist snuck onto the premises and firebombed the clinic. The perpetrator, a Washington man, was ultimately caught, convicted and imprisoned. The facility was a near-total loss, but all of the patients' records, though damaged, survived the fire in metal file cabinets.[30][31][32]
> *May 21, 1998:* Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.[33]
> *October 1999:* Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[34]
> *May 28, 2000:* An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire, resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved.[35][36][37] This was the second arson at the clinic.[38]
> *September 30, 2000:* John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building, who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[39]
> *June 11, 2001:* An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington, destroyed a wall, resulting in $6,000 in damages.[34][40]
> *July 4, 2005:* A clinic Palm Beach, Florida, was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[34]
> *December 12, 2005:* Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a "memorial lamp" for an abortion she had had there.[41]
> *September 11, 2006* David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[42] _Time_ magazine listed the incident in a "Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots" list.[43]
> *April 25, 2007:* A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[44]
> *May 9, 2007:* An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[45]
> *December 6, 2007:* Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Baca's girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[46][47]
> *January 22, 2009* Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness[48] rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[49]
> *January 1, 2012* Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida, with a Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during one of the frequent anti-abortion protests there. The clinic had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.[50]
> *April 1, 2012* A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that damaged one of the clinic's examination rooms. No injuries were reported.
> *April 11, 2013* A Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Indiana, was vandalized with an axe.[51]
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and there all bad. But to say the millions of pro lifers are akin to these people is ridiculous, seriously.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I never said anything remotely like that.  I said that this company may very well have been concerned that some mental midget, like the two stupid bitches commenting here, would believe the lies being told about their research and act out violently.  And do you think they are going to stop obtaining fetal tissue for research?  They will get it from other abortion providers for awhile and, when this story dies because it is based on lies, they will begin to deal with Planned parenthood again.


----------



## paddymurphy

koshergrl said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last abortion bombing? 1983? By someone who clearly didn't follow Jesus whatsoever. Just because someone's against PP doesn't make them a terrorist correct?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it does not make them a terrorist, any more than being a Muslim does.  The question was why would that company cit ties with pp.  Threats of violence and actual violence is a common tactic of abortion opponents.  And, no, idiot, the last act of violence towards an abortion provider was not 30 years ago. That is when it started.
> 
> According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[17] The _New York Times_ also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[23] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[24] Incidents have included:
> 
> 
> *May 26, 1983:* Joseph Grace set the Hillcrest clinic in Norfolk, Virginia ablaze. He was arrested while sleeping in his van a few blocks from the clinic when an alert patrol officer noticed the smell of kerosene.[25]
> *May 12, 1984:* Two men entered a Birmingham, Alabama clinic shortly after a lone woman opened the doors at 7:45 am. Forcing their way into the clinic, one of the men threatened the woman if she tried to prevent the attack while the other, wielding a sledgehammer, did between $7,500 and $8,000 of damage to suction equipment. The man who damaged the equipment was later identified as Father Edward Markley. Father Markley is a Benedictine Monk who was the Birmingham diocesan "Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities". Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and second-degree burglary. His accomplice has never been identified. Following the Birmingham incident, Markley entered the Women's Community Health Center in Huntsville Alabama, assaulting at least three clinic workers. One of the workers, Kathryn Wood received back injuries and a broken neck vertebrae. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and three counts of third-degree assault and harassment in the Huntsville attack.[26]
> *December 25, 1984:* An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida, were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[27][28][29] The clinic, the Ladies Center, would later be the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994 and a firebombing in 2012.
> *March 29, 1993:* Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, Montana; at around 1 a.m., an arsonist snuck onto the premises and firebombed the clinic. The perpetrator, a Washington man, was ultimately caught, convicted and imprisoned. The facility was a near-total loss, but all of the patients' records, though damaged, survived the fire in metal file cabinets.[30][31][32]
> *May 21, 1998:* Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.[33]
> *October 1999:* Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[34]
> *May 28, 2000:* An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire, resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved.[35][36][37] This was the second arson at the clinic.[38]
> *September 30, 2000:* John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building, who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[39]
> *June 11, 2001:* An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington, destroyed a wall, resulting in $6,000 in damages.[34][40]
> *July 4, 2005:* A clinic Palm Beach, Florida, was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[34]
> *December 12, 2005:* Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a "memorial lamp" for an abortion she had had there.[41]
> *September 11, 2006* David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[42] _Time_ magazine listed the incident in a "Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots" list.[43]
> *April 25, 2007:* A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[44]
> *May 9, 2007:* An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[45]
> *December 6, 2007:* Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Baca's girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[46][47]
> *January 22, 2009* Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness[48] rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[49]
> *January 1, 2012* Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida, with a Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during one of the frequent anti-abortion protests there. The clinic had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.[50]
> *April 1, 2012* A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that damaged one of the clinic's examination rooms. No injuries were reported.
> *April 11, 2013* A Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Indiana, was vandalized with an axe.[51]
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you put a lot off effort into dressing up lies to protect unrestricted access to and abuse of women. Are you a pimp?
Click to expand...

Lies?  So those doctors and nurses aren't dead?


----------



## koshergrl

JFish123 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> That and they were ruled against on the videos yesterday.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last abortion bombing? 1983? By someone who clearly didn't follow Jesus whatsoever. Just because someone's against PP doesn't make them a terrorist correct?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it does not make them a terrorist, any more than being a Muslim does.  The question was why would that company cit ties with pp.  Threats of violence and actual violence is a common tactic of abortion opponents.  And, no, idiot, the last act of violence towards an abortion provider was not 30 years ago. That is when it started.
> 
> According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[17] The _New York Times_ also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[23] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[24] Incidents have included:
> 
> 
> *May 26, 1983:* Joseph Grace set the Hillcrest clinic in Norfolk, Virginia ablaze. He was arrested while sleeping in his van a few blocks from the clinic when an alert patrol officer noticed the smell of kerosene.[25]
> *May 12, 1984:* Two men entered a Birmingham, Alabama clinic shortly after a lone woman opened the doors at 7:45 am. Forcing their way into the clinic, one of the men threatened the woman if she tried to prevent the attack while the other, wielding a sledgehammer, did between $7,500 and $8,000 of damage to suction equipment. The man who damaged the equipment was later identified as Father Edward Markley. Father Markley is a Benedictine Monk who was the Birmingham diocesan "Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities". Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and second-degree burglary. His accomplice has never been identified. Following the Birmingham incident, Markley entered the Women's Community Health Center in Huntsville Alabama, assaulting at least three clinic workers. One of the workers, Kathryn Wood received back injuries and a broken neck vertebrae. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and three counts of third-degree assault and harassment in the Huntsville attack.[26]
> *December 25, 1984:* An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida, were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[27][28][29] The clinic, the Ladies Center, would later be the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994 and a firebombing in 2012.
> *March 29, 1993:* Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, Montana; at around 1 a.m., an arsonist snuck onto the premises and firebombed the clinic. The perpetrator, a Washington man, was ultimately caught, convicted and imprisoned. The facility was a near-total loss, but all of the patients' records, though damaged, survived the fire in metal file cabinets.[30][31][32]
> *May 21, 1998:* Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.[33]
> *October 1999:* Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[34]
> *May 28, 2000:* An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire, resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved.[35][36][37] This was the second arson at the clinic.[38]
> *September 30, 2000:* John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building, who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[39]
> *June 11, 2001:* An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington, destroyed a wall, resulting in $6,000 in damages.[34][40]
> *July 4, 2005:* A clinic Palm Beach, Florida, was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[34]
> *December 12, 2005:* Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a "memorial lamp" for an abortion she had had there.[41]
> *September 11, 2006* David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[42] _Time_ magazine listed the incident in a "Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots" list.[43]
> *April 25, 2007:* A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[44]
> *May 9, 2007:* An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[45]
> *December 6, 2007:* Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Baca's girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[46][47]
> *January 22, 2009* Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness[48] rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[49]
> *January 1, 2012* Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida, with a Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during one of the frequent anti-abortion protests there. The clinic had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.[50]
> *April 1, 2012* A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that damaged one of the clinic's examination rooms. No injuries were reported.
> *April 11, 2013* A Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Indiana, was vandalized with an axe.[51]
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, and there all bad. But to say the millions of pro lifers are akin to these people is ridiculous, seriously.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's what pro abortionists do. They essentially level threats at people who try to protect the women and children they kill and exploit. "If you don't pay planned parenthood we're taking your Medicaid" "If you object to killing babies and women, you are a terrorist" "If you provide oversight of PP clinics, ppl will die". It truly is straight out of Hitler's propaganda files.


----------



## koshergrl

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  They don't want someone like you setting off a bomb in their building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was the last abortion bombing? 1983? By someone who clearly didn't follow Jesus whatsoever. Just because someone's against PP doesn't make them a terrorist correct?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it does not make them a terrorist, any more than being a Muslim does.  The question was why would that company cit ties with pp.  Threats of violence and actual violence is a common tactic of abortion opponents.  And, no, idiot, the last act of violence towards an abortion provider was not 30 years ago. That is when it started.
> 
> According to NAF, since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").[17] The _New York Times_ also cites over one hundred clinic bombings and incidents of arson, over three hundred invasions, and over four hundred incidents of vandalism between 1978 and 1993.[23] The first clinic arson occurred in Oregon in March 1976 and the first bombing occurred in February 1978 in Ohio.[24] Incidents have included:
> 
> 
> *May 26, 1983:* Joseph Grace set the Hillcrest clinic in Norfolk, Virginia ablaze. He was arrested while sleeping in his van a few blocks from the clinic when an alert patrol officer noticed the smell of kerosene.[25]
> *May 12, 1984:* Two men entered a Birmingham, Alabama clinic shortly after a lone woman opened the doors at 7:45 am. Forcing their way into the clinic, one of the men threatened the woman if she tried to prevent the attack while the other, wielding a sledgehammer, did between $7,500 and $8,000 of damage to suction equipment. The man who damaged the equipment was later identified as Father Edward Markley. Father Markley is a Benedictine Monk who was the Birmingham diocesan "Coordinator for Pro-Life Activities". Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and second-degree burglary. His accomplice has never been identified. Following the Birmingham incident, Markley entered the Women's Community Health Center in Huntsville Alabama, assaulting at least three clinic workers. One of the workers, Kathryn Wood received back injuries and a broken neck vertebrae. Markley was convicted of first-degree criminal mischief and three counts of third-degree assault and harassment in the Huntsville attack.[26]
> *December 25, 1984:* An abortion clinic and two physicians' offices in Pensacola, Florida, were bombed in the early morning of Christmas Day by a quartet of young people (Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins) who later called the bombings "a gift to Jesus on his birthday."[27][28][29] The clinic, the Ladies Center, would later be the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994 and a firebombing in 2012.
> *March 29, 1993:* Blue Mountain Clinic in Missoula, Montana; at around 1 a.m., an arsonist snuck onto the premises and firebombed the clinic. The perpetrator, a Washington man, was ultimately caught, convicted and imprisoned. The facility was a near-total loss, but all of the patients' records, though damaged, survived the fire in metal file cabinets.[30][31][32]
> *May 21, 1998:* Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida.[33]
> *October 1999:* Martin Uphoff set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, causing US$100 worth of damage. He was later sentenced to 60 months in prison.[34]
> *May 28, 2000:* An arson at a clinic in Concord, New Hampshire, resulted in several thousand dollars' worth of damage. The case remains unsolved.[35][36][37] This was the second arson at the clinic.[38]
> *September 30, 2000:* John Earl, a Catholic priest, drove his car into the Northern Illinois Health Clinic after learning that the FDA had approved the drug RU-486. He pulled out an ax before being forced to the ground by the owner of the building, who fired two warning shots from a shotgun.[39]
> *June 11, 2001:* An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington, destroyed a wall, resulting in $6,000 in damages.[34][40]
> *July 4, 2005:* A clinic Palm Beach, Florida, was the target of an arson. The case remains open.[34]
> *December 12, 2005:* Patricia Hughes and Jeremy Dunahoe threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana. The device missed the building and no damage was caused. In August 2006, Hughes was sentenced to six years in prison, and Dunahoe to one year. Hughes claimed the bomb was a "memorial lamp" for an abortion she had had there.[41]
> *September 11, 2006* David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan, crashed his car into the Edgerton Women's Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions; however, Edgerton is not an abortion clinic.[42] _Time_ magazine listed the incident in a "Top 10 Inept Terrorist Plots" list.[43]
> *April 25, 2007:* A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building. Paul Ross Evans (who had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft) was found guilty of the crime.[44]
> *May 9, 2007:* An unidentified person deliberately set fire to a Planned Parenthood clinic in Virginia Beach, Virginia.[45]
> *December 6, 2007:* Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd's clinic in Albuquerque. Baca's girlfriend had scheduled an appointment for an abortion at the clinic.[46][47]
> *January 22, 2009* Matthew L. Derosia, 32, who was reported to have had a history of mental illness[48] rammed an SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota.[49]
> *January 1, 2012* Bobby Joe Rogers, 41, firebombed the American Family Planning Clinic in Pensacola, Florida, with a Molotov cocktail; the fire gutted the building. Rogers told investigators that he was motivated to commit the crime by his opposition to abortion, and that what more directly prompted the act was seeing a patient enter the clinic during one of the frequent anti-abortion protests there. The clinic had previously been bombed at Christmas in 1984 and was the site of the murder of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett in 1994.[50]
> *April 1, 2012* A bomb exploded on the windowsill of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Grand Chute, Wisconsin, resulting in a fire that damaged one of the clinic's examination rooms. No injuries were reported.
> *April 11, 2013* A Planned Parenthood clinic in Bloomington, Indiana, was vandalized with an axe.[51]
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow you put a lot off effort into dressing up lies to protect unrestricted access to and abuse of women. Are you a pimp?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lies?  So those doctors and nurses aren't dead?
Click to expand...

Your friends the non licensed, addicted and shunned abortionists kill more in a day.


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DESTROYING ABORTION ARGUMENTS
> 
> ARGUMENT #1: The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
> ANSWER: This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive.  How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
> This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
> At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
> If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?
> 
> ARGUMENT #2: The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
> ANSWER: But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
> When does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
> It is animals who are owned--not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.
> 
> ARGUMENT #3: If the tissue is not human but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
> ANSWER: An internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature, so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
> They are different in nature because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.
> 
> ARGUMENT #4: The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
> ANSWER: If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
> It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
> Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
> The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type from the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
> People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
> Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention .... it's unconstitutional to force women to be pregnant against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That breaks down at 3 rd trimester. And a very large majority if the time they are not getting pregnant against their will. That is what happens when you practice reproduction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a reason why a risk to the woman's health is legally required for a 3rd trimester abortion.
> 
> And the reason a woman gets pregnant matters not. She can still not be forced to remain pregnant against her will. At least not during the first two trimesters.
Click to expand...

The government does not have robots who come in and in-pregnant women against their will. Women have sex, sex makes babies, so how are they being forced to get pregnant?


----------



## koshergrl

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DESTROYING ABORTION ARGUMENTS
> 
> ARGUMENT #1: The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
> ANSWER: This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive.  How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
> This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
> At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
> If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?
> 
> ARGUMENT #2: The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
> ANSWER: But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
> When does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
> It is animals who are owned--not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.
> 
> ARGUMENT #3: If the tissue is not human but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
> ANSWER: An internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature, so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
> They are different in nature because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.
> 
> ARGUMENT #4: The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
> ANSWER: If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
> It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
> Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
> The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type from the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
> People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
> Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention .... it's unconstitutional to force women to be pregnant against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That breaks down at 3 rd trimester. And a very large majority if the time they are not getting pregnant against their will. That is what happens when you practice reproduction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a reason why a risk to the woman's health is legally required for a 3rd trimester abortion.
> 
> And the reason a woman gets pregnant matters not. She can still not be forced to remain pregnant against her will. At least not during the first two trimesters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government does not have robots who come in and in-pregnant women against their will. Women have sex, sex makes babies, so how are they being forced to get pregnant?
Click to expand...

The only ones forced to get pregnant are the same ones who are forced to get abortions. The same ones pp assaults, kills, abuses and exploits.


----------



## koshergrl

Pp protects those who force them to get pregnant and helps those who force them to get abortions...and covers for the same.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DESTROYING ABORTION ARGUMENTS
> 
> ARGUMENT #1: The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
> ANSWER: This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive.  How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
> This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
> At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
> If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?
> 
> ARGUMENT #2: The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
> ANSWER: But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
> When does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
> It is animals who are owned--not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.
> 
> ARGUMENT #3: If the tissue is not human but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
> ANSWER: An internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature, so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
> They are different in nature because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.
> 
> ARGUMENT #4: The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
> ANSWER: If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
> It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
> Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
> The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type from the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
> People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
> Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention .... it's unconstitutional to force women to be pregnant against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That breaks down at 3 rd trimester. And a very large majority if the time they are not getting pregnant against their will. That is what happens when you practice reproduction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a reason why a risk to the woman's health is legally required for a 3rd trimester abortion.
> 
> And the reason a woman gets pregnant matters not. She can still not be forced to remain pregnant against her will. At least not during the first two trimesters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government does not have robots who come in and in-pregnant women against their will. Women have sex, sex makes babies, so how are they being forced to get pregnant?
Click to expand...

Moronic.

No one said anyone was being forced to get pregnant. 

Next strawman...?


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DESTROYING ABORTION ARGUMENTS
> 
> ARGUMENT #1: The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
> ANSWER: This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive.  How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
> This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
> At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
> If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?
> 
> ARGUMENT #2: The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
> ANSWER: But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
> When does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
> It is animals who are owned--not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.
> 
> ARGUMENT #3: If the tissue is not human but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
> ANSWER: An internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature, so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
> They are different in nature because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.
> 
> ARGUMENT #4: The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
> ANSWER: If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
> It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
> Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
> The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type from the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
> People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
> Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention .... it's unconstitutional to force women to be pregnant against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That breaks down at 3 rd trimester. And a very large majority if the time they are not getting pregnant against their will. That is what happens when you practice reproduction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a reason why a risk to the woman's health is legally required for a 3rd trimester abortion.
> 
> And the reason a woman gets pregnant matters not. She can still not be forced to remain pregnant against her will. At least not during the first two trimesters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government does not have robots who come in and in-pregnant women against their will. Women have sex, sex makes babies, so how are they being forced to get pregnant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only ones forced to get pregnant are the same ones who are forced to get abortions. The same ones pp assaults, kills, abuses and exploits.
Click to expand...

Moronic.

No one is being forced to get pregnant. 

No one is being forced to get an abortion. 

Next strawman...?


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DESTROYING ABORTION ARGUMENTS
> 
> ARGUMENT #1: The life in the womb is not human because it is not fully developed.
> ANSWER: This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive.  How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
> This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed. What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
> At what point does the life (that is human in nature) suddenly develop value?
> If value is dependent upon the choice of the mother, then how is it possible that the choice of the mother changes the nature of the life from valueless to valuable since there is no change in the condition of the life in the womb?
> 
> ARGUMENT #2: The human tissue produced in the woman is the property of the one who produces it.
> ANSWER: But if what is growing in the womb is a person, it cannot be owned. Is the life in the womb property like a cat or a dog that can be owned?
> When does the child stop being the property of the mother? At birth? At one-year old? Two? Ten? Twenty?
> It is animals who are owned--not people--unless you want to reintroduce slavery.
> 
> ARGUMENT #3: If the tissue is not human but just like an internal organ, it belongs to the one in whom it dwells.
> ANSWER: An internal organ is meant to be an internal organ and not a person. The life in the womb is meant to be a person. They are different by design and nature, so the claim that it is the property of the mother is invalid.
> They are different in nature because an internal organ does not have the ability to become a human.
> 
> ARGUMENT #4: The life in the womb is really part of the woman, and the woman has the right to do as she wills with her body.
> ANSWER: If it is part of the woman, then does the woman have four arms, four legs, two heads, and four eyes? Is that what a human is?
> It is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the mother.
> Her body is feeding the life. Her body is separate from the life growing in her.
> The life growing in the womb can have a different blood type from the mother, and it has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own human DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother.
> People are free to do as they please within the confines of the law. For example, the law says people do not have the right to take illegal drugs into their bodies.
> Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal, but that did not make it right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention .... it's unconstitutional to force women to be pregnant against their will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That breaks down at 3 rd trimester. And a very large majority if the time they are not getting pregnant against their will. That is what happens when you practice reproduction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a reason why a risk to the woman's health is legally required for a 3rd trimester abortion.
> 
> And the reason a woman gets pregnant matters not. She can still not be forced to remain pregnant against her will. At least not during the first two trimesters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government does not have robots who come in and in-pregnant women against their will. Women have sex, sex makes babies, so how are they being forced to get pregnant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moronic.
> 
> No one said anyone was being forced to get pregnant.
> 
> Next strawman...?
Click to expand...

Me straw man? You're the one saying the government can't force you to be pregnant.


----------



## Faun

sakinago said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention .... it's unconstitutional to force women to be pregnant against their will.
> 
> 
> 
> That breaks down at 3 rd trimester. And a very large majority if the time they are not getting pregnant against their will. That is what happens when you practice reproduction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a reason why a risk to the woman's health is legally required for a 3rd trimester abortion.
> 
> And the reason a woman gets pregnant matters not. She can still not be forced to remain pregnant against her will. At least not during the first two trimesters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government does not have robots who come in and in-pregnant women against their will. Women have sex, sex makes babies, so how are they being forced to get pregnant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moronic.
> 
> No one said anyone was being forced to get pregnant.
> 
> Next strawman...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me straw man? You're the one saying the government can't force you to be pregnant.
Click to expand...

Yes, your strawman. I never said the government can force anyone to get pregnant.  WTF is wrong with you? Do you not understand English?


----------



## JFish123

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That breaks down at 3 rd trimester. And a very large majority if the time they are not getting pregnant against their will. That is what happens when you practice reproduction
> 
> 
> 
> That's a reason why a risk to the woman's health is legally required for a 3rd trimester abortion.
> 
> And the reason a woman gets pregnant matters not. She can still not be forced to remain pregnant against her will. At least not during the first two trimesters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government does not have robots who come in and in-pregnant women against their will. Women have sex, sex makes babies, so how are they being forced to get pregnant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moronic.
> 
> No one said anyone was being forced to get pregnant.
> 
> Next strawman...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me straw man? You're the one saying the government can't force you to be pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your strawman. I never said the government can force anyone to get pregnant.  WTF is wrong with you? Do you not understand English?
Click to expand...

So a day before the third trimester it's not human and they can get an abortion, but a day after the third trimester it is human.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Faun

JFish123 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a reason why a risk to the woman's health is legally required for a 3rd trimester abortion.
> 
> And the reason a woman gets pregnant matters not. She can still not be forced to remain pregnant against her will. At least not during the first two trimesters.
> 
> 
> 
> The government does not have robots who come in and in-pregnant women against their will. Women have sex, sex makes babies, so how are they being forced to get pregnant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moronic.
> 
> No one said anyone was being forced to get pregnant.
> 
> Next strawman...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me straw man? You're the one saying the government can't force you to be pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your strawman. I never said the government can force anyone to get pregnant.  WTF is wrong with you? Do you not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a day before the third trimester it's not human and they can get an abortion, but a day after the third trimester it is human.
> View attachment 47571
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No one said it's not human prior to the third trimester.


----------



## koshergrl

JFish123 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a reason why a risk to the woman's health is legally required for a 3rd trimester abortion.
> 
> And the reason a woman gets pregnant matters not. She can still not be forced to remain pregnant against her will. At least not during the first two trimesters.
> 
> 
> 
> The government does not have robots who come in and in-pregnant women against their will. Women have sex, sex makes babies, so how are they being forced to get pregnant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moronic.
> 
> No one said anyone was being forced to get pregnant.
> 
> Next strawman...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me straw man? You're the one saying the government can't force you to be pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your strawman. I never said the government can force anyone to get pregnant.  WTF is wrong with you? Do you not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a day before the third trimester it's not human and they can get an abortion, but a day after the third trimester it is human.
> View attachment 47571
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Here's the thing....thry know it's human. They don't view murder as bad...and the weaker and smaller the victims, the more ok it is.


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government does not have robots who come in and in-pregnant women against their will. Women have sex, sex makes babies, so how are they being forced to get pregnant?
> 
> 
> 
> Moronic.
> 
> No one said anyone was being forced to get pregnant.
> 
> Next strawman...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me straw man? You're the one saying the government can't force you to be pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your strawman. I never said the government can force anyone to get pregnant.  WTF is wrong with you? Do you not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a day before the third trimester it's not human and they can get an abortion, but a day after the third trimester it is human.
> View attachment 47571
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's the thing....thry know it's human. They don't view murder as bad...and the weaker and smaller the victims, the more ok it is.
Click to expand...

Imbecile.... murder is the illegal killing of another human. Abortion is legal. Therefore, no more murder than is killing someone in self-defense.


----------



## koshergrl

JFish123 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a reason why a risk to the woman's health is legally required for a 3rd trimester abortion.
> 
> And the reason a woman gets pregnant matters not. She can still not be forced to remain pregnant against her will. At least not during the first two trimesters.
> 
> 
> 
> The government does not have robots who come in and in-pregnant women against their will. Women have sex, sex makes babies, so how are they being forced to get pregnant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moronic.
> 
> No one said anyone was being forced to get pregnant.
> 
> Next strawman...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me straw man? You're the one saying the government can't force you to be pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your strawman. I never said the government can force anyone to get pregnant.  WTF is wrong with you? Do you not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a day before the third trimester it's not human and they can get an abortion, but a day after the third trimester it is human.
> View attachment 47571
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government does not have robots who come in and in-pregnant women against their will. Women have sex, sex makes babies, so how are they being forced to get pregnant?
> 
> 
> 
> Moronic.
> 
> No one said anyone was being forced to get pregnant.
> 
> Next strawman...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me straw man? You're the one saying the government can't force you to be pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your strawman. I never said the government can force anyone to get pregnant.  WTF is wrong with you? Do you not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a day before the third trimester it's not human and they can get an abortion, but a day after the third trimester it is human.
> View attachment 47571
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 47588
Click to expand...

Complete idiocy as always. That seems to be all you know.

Liberal logic is ... it's the pregnant woman's choice if she wants to remain pregnant.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Faun said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moronic.
> 
> No one said anyone was being forced to get pregnant.
> 
> Next strawman...?
> 
> 
> 
> Me straw man? You're the one saying the government can't force you to be pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your strawman. I never said the government can force anyone to get pregnant.  WTF is wrong with you? Do you not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a day before the third trimester it's not human and they can get an abortion, but a day after the third trimester it is human.
> View attachment 47571
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's the thing....thry know it's human. They don't view murder as bad...and the weaker and smaller the victims, the more ok it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile.... murder is the illegal killing of another human. Abortion is legal. Therefore, no more murder than is killing someone in self-defense.
Click to expand...


You are calling her an imbecile for calling abortion murder while you are calling abortion self defense from murder?   Do you have any idea how bizarre you sound?    Seriously.  Abortion is not an act of self defense. Abortion is murder!   Koshergrl is right!


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Abortion is murder.  That is a baby.  Not a "fetus"...


----------



## Faun

Jeremiah said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me straw man? You're the one saying the government can't force you to be pregnant.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your strawman. I never said the government can force anyone to get pregnant.  WTF is wrong with you? Do you not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a day before the third trimester it's not human and they can get an abortion, but a day after the third trimester it is human.
> View attachment 47571
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's the thing....thry know it's human. They don't view murder as bad...and the weaker and smaller the victims, the more ok it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile.... murder is the illegal killing of another human. Abortion is legal. Therefore, no more murder than is killing someone in self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are calling her an imbecile for calling abortion murder while you are calling abortion self defense from murder?   Do you have any idea how bizarre you sound?    Seriously.  Abortion is not an act of self defense. Abortion is murder!   Koshergrl is right!
Click to expand...

KG is an imbecile and so are you apparently.  Again... murder is the unlawful killing of another human. Abortion is not illegal; therefore, abortion is not murder. And i never said abortion is self-defense. My point is that the law allows for the killing of another depending on the circumstances. Self-defense being one ... abortion being another.


----------



## Faun

Jeremiah said:


> Abortion is murder.  That is a baby.  Not a "fetus"...


If that is the result of an illegal abortion, than those involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

What do you even know about it? Was the pregnant woman's life at risk? Was it a stillbirth and not an abortion? Do you know? Or do you only care about posting gruesome images to compensate for your position, regardless what the actual circumstances were?


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> That breaks down at 3 rd trimester. And a very large majority if the time they are not getting pregnant against their will. That is what happens when you practice reproduction
> 
> 
> 
> That's a reason why a risk to the woman's health is legally required for a 3rd trimester abortion.
> 
> And the reason a woman gets pregnant matters not. She can still not be forced to remain pregnant against her will. At least not during the first two trimesters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The government does not have robots who come in and in-pregnant women against their will. Women have sex, sex makes babies, so how are they being forced to get pregnant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moronic.
> 
> No one said anyone was being forced to get pregnant.
> 
> Next strawman...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me straw man? You're the one saying the government can't force you to be pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your strawman. I never said the government can force anyone to get pregnant.  WTF is wrong with you? Do you not understand English?
Click to expand...

But your saying the government cannot force women to be pregnant ? How could they do so?


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFish123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moronic.
> 
> No one said anyone was being forced to get pregnant.
> 
> Next strawman...?
> 
> 
> 
> Me straw man? You're the one saying the government can't force you to be pregnant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, your strawman. I never said the government can force anyone to get pregnant.  WTF is wrong with you? Do you not understand English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a day before the third trimester it's not human and they can get an abortion, but a day after the third trimester it is human.
> View attachment 47571
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 47588
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete idiocy as always. That seems to be all you know.
> 
> Liberal logic is ... it's the pregnant woman's choice if she wants to remain pregnant.
Click to expand...

Current day liberal logic: people should have the least amount of choice and privacy, except when it comes to abortion.  

Classic liberal logic: people should have the greatest amount of choice and privacy, but life must be protected


----------



## Faun

Who's "they" and what are "they" "doing?"


----------



## sakinago

Faun said:


> Who's "they" and what are "they" "doing?"


Government like you said, they can't force women to be pregnant, I'm pretty sure that's nature getting them pregnant


----------



## koshergrl

Jeremiah said:


> Abortion is murder.  That is a baby.  Not a "fetus"...


They don't like the facts. And they really don't want the girls and women they lie to and prey on to see the reality.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Faun said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is murder.  That is a baby.  Not a "fetus"...
> 
> 
> 
> If that is the result of an illegal abortion, than those involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
> 
> What do you even know about it? Was the pregnant woman's life at risk? Was it a stillbirth and not an abortion? Do you know? Or do you only care about posting gruesome images to compensate for your position, regardless what the actual circumstances were?
Click to expand...


I know that it is a partial birth abortion and there are over 160,000 of these abortions done each year ( babies 3 months and older) and there are over 16,000 which are done at 4 months and older - horrific - isn't it?  So as this was a legal abortion - are you still against it?  Will you still call it murder knowing it was done "legally"?  

I can post the website there are 99 more photographs of other babies aborted like this.  This is what abortion is.  If you don't like it?  DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND USE YOUR VOICE TO SPEAK UP AND CONDEMN IT!


----------



## Faun

Jeremiah said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is murder.  That is a baby.  Not a "fetus"...
> 
> 
> 
> If that is the result of an illegal abortion, than those involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
> 
> What do you even know about it? Was the pregnant woman's life at risk? Was it a stillbirth and not an abortion? Do you know? Or do you only care about posting gruesome images to compensate for your position, regardless what the actual circumstances were?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that it is a partial birth abortion and there are over 160,000 of these abortions done each year ( babies 3 months and older) and there are over 16,000 which are done at 4 months and older - horrific - isn't it?  So as this was a legal abortion - are you still against it?  Will you still call it murder knowing it was done "legally"?
> 
> I can post the website there are 99 more photographs of other babies aborted like this.  This is what abortion is.  If you don't like it?  DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND USE YOUR VOICE TO SPEAK UP AND CONDEMN IT!
Click to expand...

If that was a partial birth abortion and if it was legal then it was for the safety of the mother as that is the only legal exception for such abortions.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

You are mistaken.  These are abortions that are legal in the United States.  Do you call it murder or don't you?  Answer the question.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

100 Abortion Photos - Partial Birth Abortion Pictures - Aborted Baby Pics


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Addressing Partial Birth Abortion

For some, accepting the reality of partial-birth abortion is difficult. Does this gruesome abortion procedure actually exist? If it does, it must have only been used to save the life of a mother, right? Unfortunately, partial-birth abortion is real. Abortion doctors perform the abortion on healthy women who do not want to be pregnant. The end result is the brutal death of a partially-born child.

Indifference has set in because the issue has been clouded. Some proponents of abortion stated that the issue of banning partial-birth abortions is more about ending abortion rights. Other abortion advocates stated there is no such thing as a "partial-birth abortion" and that such a term has no medical meaning.

This fact sheet produced by Right to Life of Michigan addresses partial-birth abortions. It contains information about the attempts to ban partial-birth abortion, description of the abortion procedure, information about the number and reasons behind partial-birth abortions, the opinions of experts in fetal medicine and the American Medical Association, and web sites where additional research information on partial-birth abortion may be obtained.

*Attempts to ban partial-birth abortion*
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was passed by Congress with large bi-partisan majorities and signed into law by President George W. Bush in November of 2003. After court challenges, this legislation was eventually ruled constitutional in a 5-4 vote by the U.S. Supreme Court in April of 2007. This ban became law after numerous previous attempts to make this procedure illegal. Below is a brief history of legislative attempts to ban partial-birth abortion.

As knowledge of this procedure increased across the country during the early 1990s, prolife legislators began to push for a ban on partial-birth abortion. On November 1, 1995, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 288 to 139 to pass the ban on partial-birth abortion. On December 7, 1995, the U.S. Senate voted 54 to 44 to ban this procedure. President Bill Clinton vetoed this bill on April 10, 1996.


After President Clinton was re-elected, prolife legislators continued to work to ban this procedure. On March 20, 1997, the House voted 295 to 136 to pass a bill that was similar to the one from 1995 with slight language changes. On May 20, 1997, the U.S. Senate voted 64 to 36 for the ban. Unfortunately, the Senate was three votes shy of the necessary two-thirds majority to override the veto that was promised by President Clinton.


President Clinton said that he would have signed this bill if it had made exceptions for women who had serious health problems. Exceptions for "serious health problems" would not prevent partial-birth abortions from being performed because of a definition in a U.S. Supreme Court decision. In the case Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court defined health (in the context of abortion) as "all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient." This means that abortion doctors can pick from an endless list of health reasons to abort a child, even during the last trimester of pregnancy.
_____________
Question for Faun.  Are you still going to say that abortion is not murder? Yes or no?


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

video for Faun to view:


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Please watch this, Faun,  and listen to the former director for Planned Parenthood, Abby Johnson.


From the man who posted this video on youtube - 

I saw former director of Planned Parenthood Abby Johnson on O'Reilly tonight and wanted to post that interview where she tells the story of her decision to become pro-life. I was then turned on to an interview that Huckabee did this weekend and I've decided to post it instead. In Hucakbees interview Abby goes into much greater detail on the horror that she saw during an abortion procedure and its quite powerful to hear. In fact, I couldn't watch it without shedding a few tears, and Im man enough to admit it.

How so many in our country can justify the murder of the innocent life of a child is way beyond me. The depth of depravity of those who perform these procedures and those who advocate them knowing full well what they are really like is paramount. In China women are forced to get abortions and its horrible. Here we dont force it its even worse, that weve convinced women that its their reproductive right to choose to murder. How selfish are we!

Please watch the entire video and spread it around so people can hear first hand what abortion is really like. Its not only life changing to watch this video but it may save a childs life.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah




----------



## Book of Jeremiah




----------



## Faun

Jeremiah said:


> You are mistaken.  These are abortions that are legal in the United States.  Do you call it murder or don't you?  Answer the question.


Sell your idiocy to others who are as ignorant as you.

18 U.S. Code 1531 - Partial-birth abortions prohibited US Law LII Legal Information Institute


----------



## Faun

Jeremiah said:


> Please watch this, Faun,  and listen to the former director for Planned Parenthood, Abby Johnson.
> 
> 
> From the man who posted this video on youtube -
> 
> I saw former director of Planned Parenthood Abby Johnson on O'Reilly tonight and wanted to post that interview where she tells the story of her decision to become pro-life. I was then turned on to an interview that Huckabee did this weekend and I've decided to post it instead. In Hucakbees interview Abby goes into much greater detail on the horror that she saw during an abortion procedure and its quite powerful to hear. In fact, I couldn't watch it without shedding a few tears, and Im man enough to admit it.
> 
> How so many in our country can justify the murder of the innocent life of a child is way beyond me. The depth of depravity of those who perform these procedures and those who advocate them knowing full well what they are really like is paramount. In China women are forced to get abortions and its horrible. Here we dont force it its even worse, that weve convinced women that its their reproductive right to choose to murder. How selfish are we!
> 
> Please watch the entire video and spread it around so people can hear first hand what abortion is really like. Its not only life changing to watch this video but it may save a childs life.


Not sure what you want me to see? It's a woman who seemingly didn't know an embryo is alive?


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Faun said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please watch this, Faun,  and listen to the former director for Planned Parenthood, Abby Johnson.
> 
> 
> From the man who posted this video on youtube -
> 
> I saw former director of Planned Parenthood Abby Johnson on O'Reilly tonight and wanted to post that interview where she tells the story of her decision to become pro-life. I was then turned on to an interview that Huckabee did this weekend and I've decided to post it instead. In Hucakbees interview Abby goes into much greater detail on the horror that she saw during an abortion procedure and its quite powerful to hear. In fact, I couldn't watch it without shedding a few tears, and Im man enough to admit it.
> 
> How so many in our country can justify the murder of the innocent life of a child is way beyond me. The depth of depravity of those who perform these procedures and those who advocate them knowing full well what they are really like is paramount. In China women are forced to get abortions and its horrible. Here we dont force it its even worse, that weve convinced women that its their reproductive right to choose to murder. How selfish are we!
> 
> Please watch the entire video and spread it around so people can hear first hand what abortion is really like. Its not only life changing to watch this video but it may save a childs life.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you want me to see? It's a woman who seemingly didn't know an embryo is alive?
Click to expand...


Thank you, Faun. As you acknowledge this is a life you must also acknowledge to take it is murder.

note*  The woman in the video is a former director of Planned Parenthood.  Today she is an advocate for Babies and is spending her time helping to save lives rather than helping to take them.


----------



## Faun

Jeremiah said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please watch this, Faun,  and listen to the former director for Planned Parenthood, Abby Johnson.
> 
> 
> From the man who posted this video on youtube -
> 
> I saw former director of Planned Parenthood Abby Johnson on O'Reilly tonight and wanted to post that interview where she tells the story of her decision to become pro-life. I was then turned on to an interview that Huckabee did this weekend and I've decided to post it instead. In Hucakbees interview Abby goes into much greater detail on the horror that she saw during an abortion procedure and its quite powerful to hear. In fact, I couldn't watch it without shedding a few tears, and Im man enough to admit it.
> 
> How so many in our country can justify the murder of the innocent life of a child is way beyond me. The depth of depravity of those who perform these procedures and those who advocate them knowing full well what they are really like is paramount. In China women are forced to get abortions and its horrible. Here we dont force it its even worse, that weve convinced women that its their reproductive right to choose to murder. How selfish are we!
> 
> Please watch the entire video and spread it around so people can hear first hand what abortion is really like. Its not only life changing to watch this video but it may save a childs life.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you want me to see? It's a woman who seemingly didn't know an embryo is alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, Faun. As you acknowledge this is a life you must also acknowledge to take it is murder.
> 
> note*  The woman in the video is a former director of Planned Parenthood.  Today she is an advocate for Babies and is spending her time helping to save lives rather than helping to take them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you don't get to speak for me. It's not murder if it meets an  exception, such as to protect the life of the pregnant woman.

Meanwhile, I asked you if the picture you posted was of an abortion for the protection of the pregnant woman's life and you still haven't .....


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Faun said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please watch this, Faun,  and listen to the former director for Planned Parenthood, Abby Johnson.
> 
> 
> From the man who posted this video on youtube -
> 
> I saw former director of Planned Parenthood Abby Johnson on O'Reilly tonight and wanted to post that interview where she tells the story of her decision to become pro-life. I was then turned on to an interview that Huckabee did this weekend and I've decided to post it instead. In Hucakbees interview Abby goes into much greater detail on the horror that she saw during an abortion procedure and its quite powerful to hear. In fact, I couldn't watch it without shedding a few tears, and Im man enough to admit it.
> 
> How so many in our country can justify the murder of the innocent life of a child is way beyond me. The depth of depravity of those who perform these procedures and those who advocate them knowing full well what they are really like is paramount. In China women are forced to get abortions and its horrible. Here we dont force it its even worse, that weve convinced women that its their reproductive right to choose to murder. How selfish are we!
> 
> Please watch the entire video and spread it around so people can hear first hand what abortion is really like. Its not only life changing to watch this video but it may save a childs life.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you want me to see? It's a woman who seemingly didn't know an embryo is alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, Faun. As you acknowledge this is a life you must also acknowledge to take it is murder.
> 
> note*  The woman in the video is a former director of Planned Parenthood.  Today she is an advocate for Babies and is spending her time helping to save lives rather than helping to take them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, you don't get to speak for me. It's not murder if it meets an  exception, such as to protect the life of the pregnant woman.
> 
> Meanwhile, I asked you if the picture you posted was of an abortion for the protection of the pregnant woman's life and you still haven't .....
Click to expand...


I told you that partial birth abortions are legal.  No abortion should be legal and this lame argument about protecting the life of a pregnant woman is just that, LAME.  The real reason for most abortions is "inconvenience".  It is too inconvenient to have the child, too incovenient to carry the child 9 months and put it up for adoption, it is easier to murder it because people like you keep on insisting it isn't murder.   I do get to speak for you.  Because you refuse to admit what is staring you right in the face!   IT'S MURDER.  I don't care what the situation is.  It is 100% unacceptable 100% of the time.  Get it now?

Know this, Faun.  There is a day of accountability coming and you will stand before God and answer for your defense of murdering innocent babies.  In that day?  You'll have no excuse because I am warning you right now that you are sending yourself to hell for going on the devil's assignment.  You will spend all of eternity in hell wishing you had listened to me this day.  Do yourself a favor.  Repent of this wickedness, call upon the LORD and ask Him to save you.  Otherwise?  Your future is destruction.  See Ezekiel 3:17, 18, 19 (below).  You've been warned.

*Ezekiel 3:17-19 King James Version (KJV)*
17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

*King James Version (KJV)*


----------



## Faun

Jeremiah said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please watch this, Faun,  and listen to the former director for Planned Parenthood, Abby Johnson.
> 
> 
> From the man who posted this video on youtube -
> 
> I saw former director of Planned Parenthood Abby Johnson on O'Reilly tonight and wanted to post that interview where she tells the story of her decision to become pro-life. I was then turned on to an interview that Huckabee did this weekend and I've decided to post it instead. In Hucakbees interview Abby goes into much greater detail on the horror that she saw during an abortion procedure and its quite powerful to hear. In fact, I couldn't watch it without shedding a few tears, and Im man enough to admit it.
> 
> How so many in our country can justify the murder of the innocent life of a child is way beyond me. The depth of depravity of those who perform these procedures and those who advocate them knowing full well what they are really like is paramount. In China women are forced to get abortions and its horrible. Here we dont force it its even worse, that weve convinced women that its their reproductive right to choose to murder. How selfish are we!
> 
> Please watch the entire video and spread it around so people can hear first hand what abortion is really like. Its not only life changing to watch this video but it may save a childs life.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you want me to see? It's a woman who seemingly didn't know an embryo is alive?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, Faun. As you acknowledge this is a life you must also acknowledge to take it is murder.
> 
> note*  The woman in the video is a former director of Planned Parenthood.  Today she is an advocate for Babies and is spending her time helping to save lives rather than helping to take them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, you don't get to speak for me. It's not murder if it meets an  exception, such as to protect the life of the pregnant woman.
> 
> Meanwhile, I asked you if the picture you posted was of an abortion for the protection of the pregnant woman's life and you still haven't .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you that partial birth abortions are legal.  No abortion should be legal and this lame argument about protecting the life of a pregnant woman is just that, LAME.  The real reason for most abortions is "inconvenience".  It is too inconvenient to have the child, too incovenient to carry the child 9 months and put it up for adoption, it is easier to murder it because people like you keep on insisting it isn't murder.   I do get to speak for you.  Because you refuse to admit what is staring you right in the face!   IT'S MURDER.  I don't care what the situation is.  It is 100% unacceptable 100% of the time.  Get it now?
> 
> Know this, Faun.  There is a day of accountability coming and you will stand before God and answer for your defense of murdering innocent babies.  In that day?  You'll have no excuse because I am warning you right now that you are sending yourself to hell for going on the devil's assignment.  You will spend all of eternity in hell wishing you had listened to me this day.  Do yourself a favor.  Repent of this wickedness, call upon the LORD and ask Him to save you.  Otherwise?  Your future is destruction.  See Ezekiel 3:17, 18, 19 (below).  You've been warned.
> 
> *Ezekiel 3:17-19 King James Version (KJV)*
> 17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
> 
> 18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
> 
> 19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
> 
> *King James Version (KJV)*
Click to expand...

Why would I care that you "say" it's legal after I showed you the law indicating it's not? Are you just not capable of arguing rationally? And you still haven't answered.... was that photo of a stillbirth or an abortion for the safety of the woman's life?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Hey Republicans.....you might want to consider this if you think that you will get the Latino vote:




> Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos  Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos






> In 2013, millions of people visited Planned Parenthood for a wide variety of health services -- and 22% of those patients were Latino.
> 
> Latinos are disproportionately uninsured and more likely to have trouble affording contraception. We're at a higher risk of death from cervical cancer and breast cancer and of contracting HIV and other STDs.





> In particular, when Latinas most need health services but have nowhere else to turn, Planned Parenthood is there.





> When a woman -- especially a low-income woman -- needs or desires access to contraception, a cancer screening, and yes, even an abortion, she can go to Planned Parenthood. Having that access means she has the ability to control her own health and her own future.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hey Republicans.....you might want to consider this if you think that you will get the Latino vote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos  Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2013, millions of people visited Planned Parenthood for a wide variety of health services -- and 22% of those patients were Latino.
> 
> Latinos are disproportionately uninsured and more likely to have trouble affording contraception. We're at a higher risk of death from cervical cancer and breast cancer and of contracting HIV and other STDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In particular, when Latinas most need health services but have nowhere else to turn, Planned Parenthood is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a woman -- especially a low-income woman -- needs or desires access to contraception, a cancer screening, and yes, even an abortion, she can go to Planned Parenthood. Having that access means she has the ability to control her own health and her own future.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The protection of the most innocent of all trumps votes. Of course you being a progtard won't hesitate to use it as a voting issue


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SassyIrishLass said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Republicans.....you might want to consider this if you think that you will get the Latino vote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos  Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2013, millions of people visited Planned Parenthood for a wide variety of health services -- and 22% of those patients were Latino.
> 
> Latinos are disproportionately uninsured and more likely to have trouble affording contraception. We're at a higher risk of death from cervical cancer and breast cancer and of contracting HIV and other STDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In particular, when Latinas most need health services but have nowhere else to turn, Planned Parenthood is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a woman -- especially a low-income woman -- needs or desires access to contraception, a cancer screening, and yes, even an abortion, she can go to Planned Parenthood. Having that access means she has the ability to control her own health and her own future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The protection of the most innocent of all trumps votes. Of course you being a progtard won't hesitate to use it as a voting issue
Click to expand...


It is a voting issue. We don't have to make it one. Women and Latinos know what the Republicans stand for. Most are not stupid.  You might also want to take a look at my response to you in the Huckabee thread


----------



## SassyIrishLass

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Republicans.....you might want to consider this if you think that you will get the Latino vote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos  Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2013, millions of people visited Planned Parenthood for a wide variety of health services -- and 22% of those patients were Latino.
> 
> Latinos are disproportionately uninsured and more likely to have trouble affording contraception. We're at a higher risk of death from cervical cancer and breast cancer and of contracting HIV and other STDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In particular, when Latinas most need health services but have nowhere else to turn, Planned Parenthood is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a woman -- especially a low-income woman -- needs or desires access to contraception, a cancer screening, and yes, even an abortion, she can go to Planned Parenthood. Having that access means she has the ability to control her own health and her own future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The protection of the most innocent of all trumps votes. Of course you being a progtard won't hesitate to use it as a voting issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a voting issue. We don't have to make it one. Women and Latinos know what the Republicans stand for. Most are not stupid.  You might also want to take a look at my response to you in the Huckabee thread
Click to expand...


I saw it. It shouldn't be a voting issue, it's a moral issue. But with that said I'll never vote for any pro choice candidate so perhaps you are right


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SassyIrishLass said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Republicans.....you might want to consider this if you think that you will get the Latino vote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos  Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2013, millions of people visited Planned Parenthood for a wide variety of health services -- and 22% of those patients were Latino.
> 
> Latinos are disproportionately uninsured and more likely to have trouble affording contraception. We're at a higher risk of death from cervical cancer and breast cancer and of contracting HIV and other STDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In particular, when Latinas most need health services but have nowhere else to turn, Planned Parenthood is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a woman -- especially a low-income woman -- needs or desires access to contraception, a cancer screening, and yes, even an abortion, she can go to Planned Parenthood. Having that access means she has the ability to control her own health and her own future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The protection of the most innocent of all trumps votes. Of course you being a progtard won't hesitate to use it as a voting issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a voting issue. We don't have to make it one. Women and Latinos know what the Republicans stand for. Most are not stupid.  You might also want to take a look at my response to you in the Huckabee thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw it. It shouldn't be a voting issue, it's a moral issue. But with that said I'll never vote for any pro choice candidate so perhaps you are right
Click to expand...


Right about what? What I'm right about is that banning abortion will not stop and may not even reduce abortion. Thinking that it will is ridged, short sighted and misguided.  It will cost lives in the long run and diminish the quality of others

If you would support a candidate just because they are against all abortion, but also against programs and policies that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that provide supports for women who carry a child to term, you are exactly what I'm talking about. A pro lifer in name only. You can't be truly pro life and support someone who is not  pro women, pro children and pro family. It is the height of hypocrisy and stupidity.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Republicans.....you might want to consider this if you think that you will get the Latino vote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos  Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2013, millions of people visited Planned Parenthood for a wide variety of health services -- and 22% of those patients were Latino.
> 
> Latinos are disproportionately uninsured and more likely to have trouble affording contraception. We're at a higher risk of death from cervical cancer and breast cancer and of contracting HIV and other STDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In particular, when Latinas most need health services but have nowhere else to turn, Planned Parenthood is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a woman -- especially a low-income woman -- needs or desires access to contraception, a cancer screening, and yes, even an abortion, she can go to Planned Parenthood. Having that access means she has the ability to control her own health and her own future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The protection of the most innocent of all trumps votes. Of course you being a progtard won't hesitate to use it as a voting issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a voting issue. We don't have to make it one. Women and Latinos know what the Republicans stand for. Most are not stupid.  You might also want to take a look at my response to you in the Huckabee thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw it. It shouldn't be a voting issue, it's a moral issue. But with that said I'll never vote for any pro choice candidate so perhaps you are right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right about what? What I'm right about is that banning abortion will not stop and may not even reduce abortion. Thinking that it will is ridged, short sighted and misguided.  It will cost lives in the long run and diminish the quality of others
> 
> If you would support a candidate just because they are against all abortion, but also against programs and policies that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that provide supports for women who carry a child to term, you are exactly what I'm talking about. A pro lifer in name only. You can't be truly pro life and support someone who is not  pro women, pro children and pro family. It is the height of hypocrisy and stupidity.
Click to expand...


Actually I'm a little pro choice....they can choose abstinence, sex education, adoption and *responsibility*


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SassyIrishLass said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Republicans.....you might want to consider this if you think that you will get the Latino vote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The protection of the most innocent of all trumps votes. Of course you being a progtard won't hesitate to use it as a voting issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a voting issue. We don't have to make it one. Women and Latinos know what the Republicans stand for. Most are not stupid.  You might also want to take a look at my response to you in the Huckabee thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw it. It shouldn't be a voting issue, it's a moral issue. But with that said I'll never vote for any pro choice candidate so perhaps you are right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right about what? What I'm right about is that banning abortion will not stop and may not even reduce abortion. Thinking that it will is ridged, short sighted and misguided.  It will cost lives in the long run and diminish the quality of others
> 
> If you would support a candidate just because they are against all abortion, but also against programs and policies that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that provide supports for women who carry a child to term, you are exactly what I'm talking about. A pro lifer in name only. You can't be truly pro life and support someone who is not  pro women, pro children and pro family. It is the height of hypocrisy and stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I'm a little pro choice....they can choose abstinence, sex education, adoption and *responsibility*
Click to expand...

That is the first indication from you of some level of enlightenment. Can I take credit for my powers of persuasion?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The protection of the most innocent of all trumps votes. Of course you being a progtard won't hesitate to use it as a voting issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a voting issue. We don't have to make it one. Women and Latinos know what the Republicans stand for. Most are not stupid.  You might also want to take a look at my response to you in the Huckabee thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw it. It shouldn't be a voting issue, it's a moral issue. But with that said I'll never vote for any pro choice candidate so perhaps you are right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right about what? What I'm right about is that banning abortion will not stop and may not even reduce abortion. Thinking that it will is ridged, short sighted and misguided.  It will cost lives in the long run and diminish the quality of others
> 
> If you would support a candidate just because they are against all abortion, but also against programs and policies that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that provide supports for women who carry a child to term, you are exactly what I'm talking about. A pro lifer in name only. You can't be truly pro life and support someone who is not  pro women, pro children and pro family. It is the height of hypocrisy and stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I'm a little pro choice....they can choose abstinence, sex education, adoption and *responsibility*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the first indication from you of some level of enlightenment. Can I take credit for my powers of persuasion?
Click to expand...


I've posted all that before, you were not paying attention or didn't see it.


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hey Republicans.....you might want to consider this if you think that you will get the Latino vote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos  Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2013, millions of people visited Planned Parenthood for a wide variety of health services -- and 22% of those patients were Latino.
> 
> Latinos are disproportionately uninsured and more likely to have trouble affording contraception. We're at a higher risk of death from cervical cancer and breast cancer and of contracting HIV and other STDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In particular, when Latinas most need health services but have nowhere else to turn, Planned Parenthood is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a woman -- especially a low-income woman -- needs or desires access to contraception, a cancer screening, and yes, even an abortion, she can go to Planned Parenthood. Having that access means she has the ability to control her own health and her own future.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Don't play race politics, sorry


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Republicans.....you might want to consider this if you think that you will get the Latino vote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos  Shame on Those Who Smear Planned Parenthood, an Essential Resource to Latinos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2013, millions of people visited Planned Parenthood for a wide variety of health services -- and 22% of those patients were Latino.
> 
> Latinos are disproportionately uninsured and more likely to have trouble affording contraception. We're at a higher risk of death from cervical cancer and breast cancer and of contracting HIV and other STDs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In particular, when Latinas most need health services but have nowhere else to turn, Planned Parenthood is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a woman -- especially a low-income woman -- needs or desires access to contraception, a cancer screening, and yes, even an abortion, she can go to Planned Parenthood. Having that access means she has the ability to control her own health and her own future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The protection of the most innocent of all trumps votes. Of course you being a progtard won't hesitate to use it as a voting issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a voting issue. We don't have to make it one. Women and Latinos know what the Republicans stand for. Most are not stupid.  You might also want to take a look at my response to you in the Huckabee thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw it. It shouldn't be a voting issue, it's a moral issue. But with that said I'll never vote for any pro choice candidate so perhaps you are right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right about what? What I'm right about is that banning abortion will not stop and may not even reduce abortion. Thinking that it will is ridged, short sighted and misguided.  It will cost lives in the long run and diminish the quality of others
> 
> If you would support a candidate just because they are against all abortion, but also against programs and policies that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that provide supports for women who carry a child to term, you are exactly what I'm talking about. A pro lifer in name only. You can't be truly pro life and support someone who is not  pro women, pro children and pro family. It is the height of hypocrisy and stupidity.
Click to expand...

Most ridiculous argument I've heard. 
A. Making abortion illegal would definitely drop the number of abortions. And also unwanted pregnancies. 

B. not supporting policy that gives out birth control like candy does not mean that you are against birth control. Making it free does not make people all of a sudden more responsible. It has the opposite effect generally speaking. Just like abortion now is a fall back for women who are not responsible enough 
to take a pill a day, wrap it up, or even better get a one time IUD that will last 10 years. Giving abortions to whoever wants one does not make people be responsible when they have sex, which is REPRODUCTION!!


----------



## sakinago

Wow just saw this. Can the pro choice folks explain how they're views are consistent or morally in the right after watching this video?

I Want to see point by point countered


----------



## aris2chat

>>
There are only three states in which Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics participate in fetal tissue donation programs: California, Colorado, and Texas.

And yet, to date, there have been 11 state-led investigations into Planned Parenthood following the release of the "sting" videos by the Center for Medical Progress: Texas, Ohio, Missouri (where there are hearings in the legislature only), Louisiana, Kansas, Georgia, Florida, Arizona (where it is qualified as inspections of clinics only, in compliance with current state law and procedure), Indiana, and Massachusetts. [Yahoo News, *8/19/15*]
<<

Videos are fabrications and set ups by a rabid anti-abortion group.  CMP is being investigated by the government.


----------



## sakinago

aris2chat said:


> >>
> There are only three states in which Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics participate in fetal tissue donation programs: California, Colorado, and Texas.
> 
> And yet, to date, there have been 11 state-led investigations into Planned Parenthood following the release of the "sting" videos by the Center for Medical Progress: Texas, Ohio, Missouri (where there are hearings in the legislature only), Louisiana, Kansas, Georgia, Florida, Arizona (where it is qualified as inspections of clinics only, in compliance with current state law and procedure), Indiana, and Massachusetts. [Yahoo News, *8/19/15*]
> <<
> 
> Videos are fabrications and set ups by a rabid anti-abortion group.  CMP is being investigated by the government.


Pointing out morally questionable business practice is not wrong. I'm sure if there was a similar sting on Walmart you'd be jumping on top of it


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

sakinago said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Republicans.....you might want to consider this if you think that you will get the Latino vote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The protection of the most innocent of all trumps votes. Of course you being a progtard won't hesitate to use it as a voting issue
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a voting issue. We don't have to make it one. Women and Latinos know what the Republicans stand for. Most are not stupid.  You might also want to take a look at my response to you in the Huckabee thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw it. It shouldn't be a voting issue, it's a moral issue. But with that said I'll never vote for any pro choice candidate so perhaps you are right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right about what? What I'm right about is that banning abortion will not stop and may not even reduce abortion. Thinking that it will is ridged, short sighted and misguided.  It will cost lives in the long run and diminish the quality of others
> 
> If you would support a candidate just because they are against all abortion, but also against programs and policies that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that provide supports for women who carry a child to term, you are exactly what I'm talking about. A pro lifer in name only. You can't be truly pro life and support someone who is not  pro women, pro children and pro family. It is the height of hypocrisy and stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most ridiculous argument I've heard.
> A. Making abortion illegal would definitely drop the number of abortions. And also unwanted pregnancies.
> 
> B. not supporting policy that gives out birth control like candy does not mean that you are against birth control. Making it free does not make people all of a sudden more responsible. It has the opposite effect generally speaking. Just like abortion now is a fall back for women who are not responsible enough
> to take a pill a day, wrap it up, or even better get a one time IUD that will last 10 years. Giving abortions to whoever wants one does not make people be responsible when they have sex, which is REPRODUCTION!!
Click to expand...


Horseshit! We have no way of knowing how many back ally abortions there were when it was illegal. You think that the availability of abortion and birth control will makes people less  responsible? How do you know that?  I'm not talking about free birth control being handed out like candy....I'm talking about it being available. I also noticed that you have nothing to say about sex education. Ridiculous!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The protection of the most innocent of all trumps votes. Of course you being a progtard won't hesitate to use it as a voting issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a voting issue. We don't have to make it one. Women and Latinos know what the Republicans stand for. Most are not stupid.  You might also want to take a look at my response to you in the Huckabee thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw it. It shouldn't be a voting issue, it's a moral issue. But with that said I'll never vote for any pro choice candidate so perhaps you are right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right about what? What I'm right about is that banning abortion will not stop and may not even reduce abortion. Thinking that it will is ridged, short sighted and misguided.  It will cost lives in the long run and diminish the quality of others
> 
> If you would support a candidate just because they are against all abortion, but also against programs and policies that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that provide supports for women who carry a child to term, you are exactly what I'm talking about. A pro lifer in name only. You can't be truly pro life and support someone who is not  pro women, pro children and pro family. It is the height of hypocrisy and stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most ridiculous argument I've heard.
> A. Making abortion illegal would definitely drop the number of abortions. And also unwanted pregnancies.
> 
> B. not supporting policy that gives out birth control like candy does not mean that you are against birth control. Making it free does not make people all of a sudden more responsible. It has the opposite effect generally speaking. Just like abortion now is a fall back for women who are not responsible enough
> to take a pill a day, wrap it up, or even better get a one time IUD that will last 10 years. Giving abortions to whoever wants one does not make people be responsible when they have sex, which is REPRODUCTION!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit! We have no way of knowing how many back ally abortions there were when it was illegal. You think that the availability of abortion and birth control will makes people less  responsible? How do you know that?  I'm not talking about free birth control being handed out like candy....I'm talking about it being available. I also noticed that you have nothing to say about sex education. Ridiculous!
Click to expand...


Stop being annoying and getting all pissed off when someone doesn't agree with you, I'm Pro Life and you're not going to change my mind on it. Too many of these abortions are being done because people are irresponsible and won't use birth control, there is no reason for that.


----------



## Rexx Taylor

this is becoming one of those sick movies from the 70's or 80's.


----------



## Rexx Taylor

oh,,,Frankenstien !!!!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

SassyIrishLass said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a voting issue. We don't have to make it one. Women and Latinos know what the Republicans stand for. Most are not stupid.  You might also want to take a look at my response to you in the Huckabee thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw it. It shouldn't be a voting issue, it's a moral issue. But with that said I'll never vote for any pro choice candidate so perhaps you are right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right about what? What I'm right about is that banning abortion will not stop and may not even reduce abortion. Thinking that it will is ridged, short sighted and misguided.  It will cost lives in the long run and diminish the quality of others
> 
> If you would support a candidate just because they are against all abortion, but also against programs and policies that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that provide supports for women who carry a child to term, you are exactly what I'm talking about. A pro lifer in name only. You can't be truly pro life and support someone who is not  pro women, pro children and pro family. It is the height of hypocrisy and stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous argument I've heard.
> A. Making abortion illegal would definitely drop the number of abortions. And also unwanted pregnancies.
> 
> B. not supporting policy that gives out birth control like candy does not mean that you are against birth control. Making it free does not make people all of a sudden more responsible. It has the opposite effect generally speaking. Just like abortion now is a fall back for women who are not responsible enough
> to take a pill a day, wrap it up, or even better get a one time IUD that will last 10 years. Giving abortions to whoever wants one does not make people be responsible when they have sex, which is REPRODUCTION!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit! We have no way of knowing how many back ally abortions there were when it was illegal. You think that the availability of abortion and birth control will makes people less  responsible? How do you know that?  I'm not talking about free birth control being handed out like candy....I'm talking about it being available. I also noticed that you have nothing to say about sex education. Ridiculous!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being annoying and getting all pissed off when someone doesn't agree with you, I'm Pro Life and you're not going to change my mind on it. Too many of these abortions are being done because people are irresponsible and won't use birth control, there is no reason for that.
Click to expand...


Who's pissed off? Not me. And I don't expect to change your mind because I can see that it's just to closed. However, I will continue to expose the fallacies  of you so called arguments and the false and unfounded assumptions about peoples behavior.


----------



## Faun

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw it. It shouldn't be a voting issue, it's a moral issue. But with that said I'll never vote for any pro choice candidate so perhaps you are right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right about what? What I'm right about is that banning abortion will not stop and may not even reduce abortion. Thinking that it will is ridged, short sighted and misguided.  It will cost lives in the long run and diminish the quality of others
> 
> If you would support a candidate just because they are against all abortion, but also against programs and policies that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that provide supports for women who carry a child to term, you are exactly what I'm talking about. A pro lifer in name only. You can't be truly pro life and support someone who is not  pro women, pro children and pro family. It is the height of hypocrisy and stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous argument I've heard.
> A. Making abortion illegal would definitely drop the number of abortions. And also unwanted pregnancies.
> 
> B. not supporting policy that gives out birth control like candy does not mean that you are against birth control. Making it free does not make people all of a sudden more responsible. It has the opposite effect generally speaking. Just like abortion now is a fall back for women who are not responsible enough
> to take a pill a day, wrap it up, or even better get a one time IUD that will last 10 years. Giving abortions to whoever wants one does not make people be responsible when they have sex, which is REPRODUCTION!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit! We have no way of knowing how many back ally abortions there were when it was illegal. You think that the availability of abortion and birth control will makes people less  responsible? How do you know that?  I'm not talking about free birth control being handed out like candy....I'm talking about it being available. I also noticed that you have nothing to say about sex education. Ridiculous!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being annoying and getting all pissed off when someone doesn't agree with you, I'm Pro Life and you're not going to change my mind on it. Too many of these abortions are being done because people are irresponsible and won't use birth control, there is no reason for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's pissed off? Not me. And I don't expect to change your mind because I can see that it's just to closed. However, I will continue to expose the fallacies  of you so called arguments and the false and unfounded assumptions about peoples behavior.
Click to expand...

No one is going to change anyone's mind on this issue and abortion is going to remain legal. Even if the videos prove a crime was commited, some folks at PP may go to prison, but abortion will remain legal. Even if Congress cuts PP's funding, abortion will remain legal. Just as there are many folks who believe life is sacrosanct from the moment of conception and their opinions will never sway, there are also many folks who believe it's not developed enough until later in the pregnancy to have rights outweigh the rights of the woman carrying it, and their opinions will never sway either. Neither side is closed minded, they both just have different, but valid, opinions.


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> The protection of the most innocent of all trumps votes. Of course you being a progtard won't hesitate to use it as a voting issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a voting issue. We don't have to make it one. Women and Latinos know what the Republicans stand for. Most are not stupid.  You might also want to take a look at my response to you in the Huckabee thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw it. It shouldn't be a voting issue, it's a moral issue. But with that said I'll never vote for any pro choice candidate so perhaps you are right
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right about what? What I'm right about is that banning abortion will not stop and may not even reduce abortion. Thinking that it will is ridged, short sighted and misguided.  It will cost lives in the long run and diminish the quality of others
> 
> If you would support a candidate just because they are against all abortion, but also against programs and policies that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that provide supports for women who carry a child to term, you are exactly what I'm talking about. A pro lifer in name only. You can't be truly pro life and support someone who is not  pro women, pro children and pro family. It is the height of hypocrisy and stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most ridiculous argument I've heard.
> A. Making abortion illegal would definitely drop the number of abortions. And also unwanted pregnancies.
> 
> B. not supporting policy that gives out birth control like candy does not mean that you are against birth control. Making it free does not make people all of a sudden more responsible. It has the opposite effect generally speaking. Just like abortion now is a fall back for women who are not responsible enough
> to take a pill a day, wrap it up, or even better get a one time IUD that will last 10 years. Giving abortions to whoever wants one does not make people be responsible when they have sex, which is REPRODUCTION!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit! We have no way of knowing how many back ally abortions there were when it was illegal. You think that the availability of abortion and birth control will makes people less  responsible? How do you know that?  I'm not talking about free birth control being handed out like candy....I'm talking about it being available. I also noticed that you have nothing to say about sex education. Ridiculous!
Click to expand...

I'm sure it wasn't 55 million back ally abortions committed. And yes people would have more respect for sex and what goes along with it, just like the Navajo side of the Grand Canyon has no fence but less people falling off of it because they don't rely and hang on the fence like on the US side of the Grand Canyon. People just have a sense that it won't be me that gets pregnant not using birth control, but even if it is there's always abortion. I'm fine with sex ed, just not taught younger than 4th grade. My gf niece whose in kindergarten got propositioned by a 1st grader who had a sex ed class a week earlier. The average boy starts watching porn at 10 years old. Kids are being introduced to sex too young, and it's not going to turn out well for their generation


----------



## aris2chat

sakinago said:


> aris2chat said:
> 
> 
> 
> >>
> There are only three states in which Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics participate in fetal tissue donation programs: California, Colorado, and Texas.
> 
> And yet, to date, there have been 11 state-led investigations into Planned Parenthood following the release of the "sting" videos by the Center for Medical Progress: Texas, Ohio, Missouri (where there are hearings in the legislature only), Louisiana, Kansas, Georgia, Florida, Arizona (where it is qualified as inspections of clinics only, in compliance with current state law and procedure), Indiana, and Massachusetts. [Yahoo News, *8/19/15*]
> <<
> 
> Videos are fabrications and set ups by a rabid anti-abortion group.  CMP is being investigated by the government.
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out morally questionable business practice is not wrong. I'm sure if there was a similar sting on Walmart you'd be jumping on top of it
Click to expand...


Not if the 'sting' is fabricated or creatively edited to become a lie.


----------



## HenryBHough

If Murder, Inc. wanted to expand the business they'd put the list of available parts online and take bids.  But would they call it a shopping list or a menu?


----------



## Lakhota

*Forensic Analysis: Planned Parenthood Videos Are Severely Manipulated*

Can the Planned Parenthood haters explain this?


----------



## Cecilie1200

aris2chat said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the anti-PP/abortion crowd pledge to refuse any treatment that has been developed using fetal tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> You loons always want to heap all this special stuff on us.."If you believe this, then you MUST do this..." "If you believe this, then you must NOT do this..."
> 
> No, we will continue to use vaccinations. But we will continue to object to harvesting dead babies to produce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your commitment to your morality is admirable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My morality requires I protect life. I will not deny life vaccinations that are already created. And I will not take life to create them. It's too subtle for baby killers to understand. In fact, the whole "life is sacred" thing befuddles them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Babies are not killed for vaccine material.  The use of the tissue/cells would have been medical waste unless the tissue is donated for research.
> 
> Rather that feed worms and bug, why shouldn't the tissue be used to save lives?
> 
> Do you have a problem when neutering animals that the balls are given to dogs of cooked and eaten?  Stuff ram balls are delicious.
> 
> We bury our bodies to feed bugs, we also donate our organs to save lives. Which is more thoughtful of saving human life?  Embalming is toxic to the environment.  Cremation just is ash and blows in the wind.
> Why don't people leave their bodies our for the animals to feed on, sustain other life?
> 
> Why do people have such a phobia of tissue for research.  It is being donated.  No one is killed for the tissue any more than donating a body to science is killing a body for it's tissue.
> 
> Bugs are more important????  But we spend billions and pollute our environment to kill bugs?  You want to feed them?  They already out number us and have out lived the dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

 
I heard, "Blah blah because EXCUSES!  Blah blah LOOK OVER THERE!"


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

* Republicans Devastated By Planned Parenthood Scandal Collapse As Videos Found To Be Edited *

The Planned Parenthood scandal has collapsed as *expert analysis of the videos has revealed that they were edited, manipulated, and have no legal value. …*


----------



## Cecilie1200

DrDoomNGloom said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the "socio-political aims and beliefs" of the Nazis was to save babies?
> Are you defending the Nazis as the saviours of babies now?
> I've heard some excellent attempts at historical revision in my time but that might just take the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
Click to expand...

 
You mean the way you're dodging the question with this "Look how clever I am and how much irrelevant minutiae I can bring up" straw man?

Two questions matter in this issue:  is it illegal to sell human tissue, and should Planned Parenthood be investigated to determine whether or not they've broken the law?

There is no amount of "Yes, but WHAT TYPE of human tissue is it?  If you don't know, I WIN!" that's going to change it or deflect from it.

It is important to the remainder of your schooling in being a human if you stop being such a cowardly shit, so be sure and do so.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Asclepias said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think you have a lock on this subject, how about an intelligence test?
> 
> The tissue being sold by planned parenthood falls into which category "embryonic" or "tissue specific"??
> 
> It is important to the remainder of your schooling so please be sure and answer, not dodge the question.
> 
> Hurry up, I don't have time to wait for you to self teach through Google.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither.
> You can't trick me that easily you tricky guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you are clueless, no tricks you just too stupid to intelligently discuss the subject retard boy.
> 
> It is tissue specific, now tissue specific means it develops into a specific organ which would be termed by all legal definitions a body part.
> 
> Take your stupid Bull Shit else where, was no trick, just a simple means to prove how fucking stupid you are.
> 
> Selling of body parts is illegal, fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's how you tried to trick me because the correct answer is that PP aren't selling body parts.
> 
> Not that what you've written has any relevance to the topic at all anyway.
> You've obviously been Googling and were just dying to bring to class something you've learnt.
> Clever boy...we should put that on the fridge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're selling or "donating" functioning livers. That's is a body part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why is no one in jail?  You guys are not making sense.
Click to expand...

 
Typical leftist logic.  "No one's been arrested, so we don't need to investigate and find out if anyone should be arrested!"


----------



## Katzndogz

Play the full videos before a grand jury.


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw it. It shouldn't be a voting issue, it's a moral issue. But with that said I'll never vote for any pro choice candidate so perhaps you are right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right about what? What I'm right about is that banning abortion will not stop and may not even reduce abortion. Thinking that it will is ridged, short sighted and misguided.  It will cost lives in the long run and diminish the quality of others
> 
> If you would support a candidate just because they are against all abortion, but also against programs and policies that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that provide supports for women who carry a child to term, you are exactly what I'm talking about. A pro lifer in name only. You can't be truly pro life and support someone who is not  pro women, pro children and pro family. It is the height of hypocrisy and stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most ridiculous argument I've heard.
> A. Making abortion illegal would definitely drop the number of abortions. And also unwanted pregnancies.
> 
> B. not supporting policy that gives out birth control like candy does not mean that you are against birth control. Making it free does not make people all of a sudden more responsible. It has the opposite effect generally speaking. Just like abortion now is a fall back for women who are not responsible enough
> to take a pill a day, wrap it up, or even better get a one time IUD that will last 10 years. Giving abortions to whoever wants one does not make people be responsible when they have sex, which is REPRODUCTION!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit! We have no way of knowing how many back ally abortions there were when it was illegal. You think that the availability of abortion and birth control will makes people less  responsible? How do you know that?  I'm not talking about free birth control being handed out like candy....I'm talking about it being available. I also noticed that you have nothing to say about sex education. Ridiculous!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop being annoying and getting all pissed off when someone doesn't agree with you, I'm Pro Life and you're not going to change my mind on it. Too many of these abortions are being done because people are irresponsible and won't use birth control, there is no reason for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who's pissed off? Not me. And I don't expect to change your mind because I can see that it's just to closed. However, I will continue to expose the fallacies  of you so called arguments and the false and unfounded assumptions about peoples behavior.
Click to expand...

Your mind is closed on the fact that a fetus has no value...except when it is wanted. Do you honestly not see the problem with that???

If a fetus has no value, yea go ahed and chop it up


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

*Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity* Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity

Although donation of fetal tissue is lawful under the Abortion Control Act and federal law, our review has found that Planned Parenthood facilities in Pennsylvania do not participate in this practice,” Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Karen Murphy wrote in a letter to a state legislator. “Moreover, there is no evidence that any Planned Parenthood site in this Commonwealth is involved in the buying or selling of fetal tissue.”
Murphy said that she’s never found a “violation … regarding the procurement or use of fetal tissue.”


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity* Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity
> 
> Although donation of fetal tissue is lawful under the Abortion Control Act and federal law, our review has found that Planned Parenthood facilities in Pennsylvania do not participate in this practice,” Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Karen Murphy wrote in a letter to a state legislator. “Moreover, there is no evidence that any Planned Parenthood site in this Commonwealth is involved in the buying or selling of fetal tissue.”
> Murphy said that she’s never found a “violation … regarding the procurement or use of fetal tissue.”


It was lawful to segregate, and enslave because those people we're not seen to have value. Does a fetus have value?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

sakinago said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity* Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity
> 
> Although donation of fetal tissue is lawful under the Abortion Control Act and federal law, our review has found that Planned Parenthood facilities in Pennsylvania do not participate in this practice,” Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Karen Murphy wrote in a letter to a state legislator. “Moreover, there is no evidence that any Planned Parenthood site in this Commonwealth is involved in the buying or selling of fetal tissue.”
> Murphy said that she’s never found a “violation … regarding the procurement or use of fetal tissue.”
> 
> 
> 
> It was lawful to segregate, and enslave because those people we're not seen to have value. Does a fetus have value?
Click to expand...

It's a little complicated if you can deal with it. See post 1486 Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity* Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity
> 
> Although donation of fetal tissue is lawful under the Abortion Control Act and federal law, our review has found that Planned Parenthood facilities in Pennsylvania do not participate in this practice,” Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Karen Murphy wrote in a letter to a state legislator. “Moreover, there is no evidence that any Planned Parenthood site in this Commonwealth is involved in the buying or selling of fetal tissue.”
> Murphy said that she’s never found a “violation … regarding the procurement or use of fetal tissue.”
> 
> 
> 
> It was lawful to segregate, and enslave because those people we're not seen to have value. Does a fetus have value?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a little complicated if you can deal with it. See post 1486 Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about a 10 year old rape girl. I'm talking about your every day abortion. Does that fetus have value?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

sakinago said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your views
Click to expand...

At least you''re consistent in your ignorance of the law.

Slavery and Jim Crow were violations of the rights of persons by the state, as is the state seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

The right to privacy concerns the protected liberty of the woman, whose rights are paramount, immune from attack by the state.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts"

This is as much a lie now as it was when first posted.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

sakinago said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity* Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity
> 
> Although donation of fetal tissue is lawful under the Abortion Control Act and federal law, our review has found that Planned Parenthood facilities in Pennsylvania do not participate in this practice,” Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Karen Murphy wrote in a letter to a state legislator. “Moreover, there is no evidence that any Planned Parenthood site in this Commonwealth is involved in the buying or selling of fetal tissue.”
> Murphy said that she’s never found a “violation … regarding the procurement or use of fetal tissue.”
> 
> 
> 
> It was lawful to segregate, and enslave because those people we're not seen to have value. Does a fetus have value?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a little complicated if you can deal with it. See post 1486 Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about a 10 year old rape girl. I'm talking about your every day abortion. Does that fetus have value?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the ten year old either. There are some things that you can't dumb down to a yes or no answer. Did you read my post?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Lilah said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who knows what you're getting at? It appears even you don't know. Here you are saying I don't know what you're getting at when I point out the viability of a 27 week embryo is not 98%, as you intimate -- but then you come back and ask what the viability is of a 27 week emryo.
> 
> ....... it's not 98%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fetal Protection Act is upheld in 39 states, and the Unborn Victim Violence Act is upheld in 29 states.
> There is also a Preborn Victims of Violence Act.
Click to expand...

More ignorance of the law.

You're confusing civil law with criminal law, where the right to privacy is the former and prohibiting violence against women is the latter.

In both cases the woman is the victim, her rights violated by the state when it seeks to compel her to give birth against her will; her right to give birth should she so desire violated by the individual who caused the end of the pregnancy through his criminal act.

None of these laws confer 'personhood' upon an embryo/fetus, or acknowledge the 'rights' of an embryo/fetus – as they in fact possess neither.

Last, each of these laws contain provisions excluding doctors who perform abortions and women who have abortions pursuant to their right to privacy.


----------



## aris2chat

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lilah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> 
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Fetal Protection Act is upheld in 39 states, and the Unborn Victim Violence Act is upheld in 29 states.
> There is also a Preborn Victims of Violence Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More ignorance of the law.
> 
> You're confusing civil law with criminal law, where the right to privacy is the former and prohibiting violence against women is the latter.
> 
> In both cases the woman is the victim, her rights violated by the state when it seeks to compel her to give birth against her will; her right to give birth should she so desire violated by the individual who caused the end of the pregnancy through his criminal act.
> 
> None of these laws confer 'personhood' upon an embryo/fetus, or acknowledge the 'rights' of an embryo/fetus – as they in fact possess neither.
> 
> Last, each of these laws contain provisions excluding doctors who perform abortions and women who have abortions pursuant to their right to privacy.
Click to expand...



Lilah does not seem to realize it is only after the first trimesters and under certain conditions.  Every state has a slightly different wording.  Abortion is not a violation of the code.  That is the right of the woman to choose.


----------



## sakinago

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun I'm starting to think that you are avoiding the question, and splitting hairs that are not even there. What is the viability when carried to TERM.
> 
> And back to the hypothetical I raised with our character Sherri Tiavo, is it ok to pull the plug if doctors say there will be a full recovery in a few months, maybe four months?
> 
> 
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your views
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least you''re consistent in your ignorance of the law.
> 
> Slavery and Jim Crow were violations of the rights of persons by the state, as is the state seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns the protected liberty of the woman, whose rights are paramount, immune from attack by the state.
Click to expand...

You really really miss the point. Point being these were all laws/or positive and negative rights at one point, and were thought to be completely righteous at the time by a lot of people. Positive in the fact that I have the right to own slaves, which was argued that right to property ownership trumped the others right to freedom. Much like you say right to privacy trumps the right to life. Negative in the sense that as a black, you by LAW do not have the right to go/sit certain places even in the public realm. You want to place the constitution and BOR up as justification for this, but forget that they are negative rights imposed on the government, not citizens, which is the foundation of our constitutional Republic (NOT DEMOCRACY!! ), you seem to be confusing the two. Ever hear the phrases, right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness(was originally going to be property instead of POH, but was changed to not give slave owners a foothold in the future), or government shall make no law concerning? The constitution and BOR was also cherry picked to by slave owners and segregationist to show why it was justified to do what they are doing.


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity* Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity
> 
> Although donation of fetal tissue is lawful under the Abortion Control Act and federal law, our review has found that Planned Parenthood facilities in Pennsylvania do not participate in this practice,” Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Karen Murphy wrote in a letter to a state legislator. “Moreover, there is no evidence that any Planned Parenthood site in this Commonwealth is involved in the buying or selling of fetal tissue.”
> Murphy said that she’s never found a “violation … regarding the procurement or use of fetal tissue.”
> 
> 
> 
> It was lawful to segregate, and enslave because those people we're not seen to have value. Does a fetus have value?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a little complicated if you can deal with it. See post 1486 Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about a 10 year old rape girl. I'm talking about your every day abortion. Does that fetus have value?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about the ten year old either. There are some things that you can't dumb down to a yes or no answer. Did you read my post?
Click to expand...

Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone while still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without  conflict of my other values?

So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?

Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?


----------



## Cecilie1200

paddymurphy said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Carson Once Did Research On Fetal Brain Tissue - BuzzFeed News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You conflate the issues.
> 
> Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
> 
> What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue.  But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue?  The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Third Video Shows Planned Parenthood Director Standing Over Dead Fetuses Discussing Prices - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shove your edited, misleading videotapes up your ass.
Click to expand...


That must have been one convincing talking points memo they sent you this week.


----------



## Cecilie1200

paddymurphy said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope lunch break was over. And it's because we have an activist justice department. We rightfully impeached Nixon for having a list of 100 targeted people...but the IRS admittedly targets 1000 of conservative groups with millions of members or potential members, then destroys evidence of that targeting, evidence that they knew was going to be under investigation, and no one gets on trouble? That's just some right wing conspiracy?
> 
> 
> 
> The IRS did not admit to targeting any conservatives groups in the manner that Nixon did.  Nixon demanded that groups on his enemy list be audited or subject to other unusual scrutiny.  All that has been established is that the IRS, in vetting the huge influx of applications for tax exempt political groups following the Citizen's United decision, used certain phrases associated with conservative politics to try to find out if they were truly non-partisan.  They did not harass any such groups; did not subject them to audits or take any enforcement actions.  More importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the White House gave a rat's ass about all of the Tea party groups popping up or gave any instruction to the IRS to do anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But yet only 3 conservative groups got approved from Lois  learner over like 2 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which 2 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DEFINITE BIAS Only ONE conservative group granted tax-exemption under Lois Lerner - Politics Policy - News - Catholic Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More lies. You are tiresome.
Click to expand...


Someone should really buy you a thesaurus, so that it's not quite so obvious that you're mindlessly parroting talking points.  With a little work, you might even learn to sound like you're actually thinking . . . once in a while.


----------



## Cecilie1200

paddymurphy said:


> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have a copy of them before they were edited??
> 
> You say they are edited, if you have not seen the originals with your own eyes how do you know??
> 
> Even if there is some editing how do you justify morally anything we have seen.
> 
> This editing, what would it have changed??
> 
> I mean it seems to be the crux of your assertion, that they are edited.
> 
> So tell us all, how and for what reason??
> 
> 
> 
> They were edited so assholes like you would use them in your ear on reproductive freedom.
Click to expand...


Prove it.  And no, a copy of your marching orders from the Left will not constitute "proof".


----------



## Cecilie1200

Asclepias said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry you have just joined the conversation now but I have always been saying that if that is how you feel about abortion, then yea go ahed and donate the tissue. But if you don't feel that way, than this is a very black eye on our society. America has felt very right about things we have done in the past; slavery, Jim Crow, manifest destiny, interment camps... Are we that daft to think we are any better than those that came before?
> 
> So on to my question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did your response have to do with my question? Let me dumb it down for you. Why have they not put Hilary and someone from PP in prison for their deeds?
Click to expand...


What a fascinating concept.  "We should not investigate to find out if someone should be in prison because no one's in prison yet."


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

sakinago said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity* Multiple States Have Now Cleared Planned Parenthood Of Any Illegal Activity
> 
> Although donation of fetal tissue is lawful under the Abortion Control Act and federal law, our review has found that Planned Parenthood facilities in Pennsylvania do not participate in this practice,” Pennsylvania Secretary of Health Karen Murphy wrote in a letter to a state legislator. “Moreover, there is no evidence that any Planned Parenthood site in this Commonwealth is involved in the buying or selling of fetal tissue.”
> Murphy said that she’s never found a “violation … regarding the procurement or use of fetal tissue.”
> 
> 
> 
> It was lawful to segregate, and enslave because those people we're not seen to have value. Does a fetus have value?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a little complicated if you can deal with it. See post 1486 Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about a 10 year old rape girl. I'm talking about your every day abortion. Does that fetus have value?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about the ten year old either. There are some things that you can't dumb down to a yes or no answer. Did you read my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without  conflict of my other values?
> 
> So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?
> 
> Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?
Click to expand...


I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.

It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort.  However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.


----------



## koshergrl

Cecilie1200 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You conflate the issues.
> 
> Nobody is saying that fetal tissue may never be used for research.
> 
> What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be allowed to SELL fetal tissue for anything..and it is indeed illegal. What is TRUE is that abortionists should NEVER be authorized to CHANGE TREATMENT of women in order to increase profit they get from the sale of fetal tissue. What is TRUE is that abortion-on-demand creates multiple human rights violations, and should be stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not legal to sell fetal tissue and there is no evidence that anyone did sell fetal tissue.  But, since you agree that it is appropriate to use fetal tissue for research, the next question is who should pay for the cost of removing, preserving and transporting such tissue?  The Center for Organ Recovery will pay hospitals for the cost of removing, storing and transporting organs for transplant. Does that mean that hospitals are profiting from the "sale of human organs." ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, there is evidence that PP clinics are selling fetal tissue. When you have 4 separate bigwigs talking about how to get the most for fetal tissue, and how to protect it during harvest, and how they don't want to "low ball" the price, and how they want to buy a lamborgini using those funds....that's evidence that they are selling fetal tissue. So you can shut the fuck up with your pro-baby killing, pro-dead baby selling lies. What are you, a dead baby buyer's rep?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Third Video Shows Planned Parenthood Director Standing Over Dead Fetuses Discussing Prices - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shove your edited, misleading videotapes up your ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That must have been one convincing talking points memo they sent you this week.
Click to expand...

They eat up anything pp tells them...but when they see actual evidence from multiple sources that illustrate what pp REALLY does....and the evidence is given by pp bosses themselves, they pretend it's not real. That is classic schizophrenia, incidentally. The voices in their head is more real than reality.


----------



## Lakhota

*This thread has been proven by forensic scientists to be a lie.*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

sakinago said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because your hypothetical is irrelevant. But to appease you, no, that would not be ok. And since you want to play the hypothetical game .... in a hypothetical case of a pregnant woman whose unborn child at say 20 weeks is determined to have such extensive brain damage that it will be born in a vegetative state with no hope of ever recovering .... what reason is there she shouldn't be allowed to abort that pregnancy if she so chooses?
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your views
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least you''re consistent in your ignorance of the law.
> 
> Slavery and Jim Crow were violations of the rights of persons by the state, as is the state seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns the protected liberty of the woman, whose rights are paramount, immune from attack by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really really miss the point. Point being these were all laws/or positive and negative rights at one point, and were thought to be completely righteous at the time by a lot of people. Positive in the fact that I have the right to own slaves, which was argued that right to property ownership trumped the others right to freedom. Much like you say right to privacy trumps the right to life. Negative in the sense that as a black, you by LAW do not have the right to go/sit certain places even in the public realm. You want to place the constitution and BOR up as justification for this, but forget that they are negative rights imposed on the government, not citizens, which is the foundation of our constitutional Republic (NOT DEMOCRACY!! ), you seem to be confusing the two. Ever hear the phrases, right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness(was originally going to be property instead of POH, but was changed to not give slave owners a foothold in the future), or government shall make no law concerning? The constitution and BOR was also cherry picked to by slave owners and segregationist to show why it was justified to do what they are doing.
Click to expand...

No, you have no 'point,' just ignorance of the law and a desire to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty. 

That Slavery and Jim Crow were once legal and rendered void by Constitutional amendment has no bearing on the fact that an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.

You're attempting to conflate two completely different issues, one having nothing to do with another.

You're also at liberty to seek to 'amend' the Constitution to repeal the 14th Amendment, thus voiding its jurisprudence, and 'amending' the Constitution again making an embryo/fetus a 'person.'

Until you realize that 'goal,' however, it remains a fact of Constitutional law that an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.


----------



## Faun

Cecilie1200 said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrDoomNGloom said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you have a copy of them before they were edited??
> 
> You say they are edited, if you have not seen the originals with your own eyes how do you know??
> 
> Even if there is some editing how do you justify morally anything we have seen.
> 
> This editing, what would it have changed??
> 
> I mean it seems to be the crux of your assertion, that they are edited.
> 
> So tell us all, how and for what reason??
> 
> 
> 
> They were edited so assholes like you would use them in your ear on reproductive freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it.  And no, a copy of your marching orders from the Left will not constitute "proof".
Click to expand...

After analysis of the full "unedited" recordings revealed they were in fact edited, *CMP admitted it*. Their defense is that they only edited out scenes they deemed  inconsequential.

_The Center for Medical Progress issued a statement on Planned Parenthood's analysis of the videos:

"Planned Parenthood's desperate, 11th-hour attempt to pay their hand-picked 'experts' to distract from the crimes documented on video is a complete failure. The absence of bathroom breaks and waiting periods between meetings does not change the hours of dialogue with top-level Planned Parenthood executives eager to manipulate abortion procedures to get high-quality baby parts for financially profitable sale. 

[more]_​
Now that you've seen their confession, you'll have to make a choice... either remained mired in the delusion they didn't edit those recordings ... or ... abandon that failed defense for a new defense centering on how we can trust they only edited out "bathroom breaks" and "waiting periods between meetings."


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was lawful to segregate, and enslave because those people we're not seen to have value. Does a fetus have value?
> 
> 
> 
> It's a little complicated if you can deal with it. See post 1486 Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about a 10 year old rape girl. I'm talking about your every day abortion. Does that fetus have value?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about the ten year old either. There are some things that you can't dumb down to a yes or no answer. Did you read my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without  conflict of my other values?
> 
> So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?
> 
> Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.
> 
> It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort.  However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.
Click to expand...

So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.


----------



## sakinago

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's different from aborting a perfectly healthy fetus, and yes that would be ok, just like schiavo.
> 
> Since you answered then, what is the difference when aborting a perfectly healthy fetus for personal reasons? Is it because it's legal? Well so was slavery, and Jim Crow.  And explain to me how the hypothetical is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> It's irrelevant because it fails as a false comparison fallacy.
> 
> As a fact of Constitutional law an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was Jim Crow and slavery so I guess that wasn't wrong then if that's how you base your views
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least you''re consistent in your ignorance of the law.
> 
> Slavery and Jim Crow were violations of the rights of persons by the state, as is the state seeking to compel a woman to give birth against her will.
> 
> The right to privacy concerns the protected liberty of the woman, whose rights are paramount, immune from attack by the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really really miss the point. Point being these were all laws/or positive and negative rights at one point, and were thought to be completely righteous at the time by a lot of people. Positive in the fact that I have the right to own slaves, which was argued that right to property ownership trumped the others right to freedom. Much like you say right to privacy trumps the right to life. Negative in the sense that as a black, you by LAW do not have the right to go/sit certain places even in the public realm. You want to place the constitution and BOR up as justification for this, but forget that they are negative rights imposed on the government, not citizens, which is the foundation of our constitutional Republic (NOT DEMOCRACY!! ), you seem to be confusing the two. Ever hear the phrases, right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness(was originally going to be property instead of POH, but was changed to not give slave owners a foothold in the future), or government shall make no law concerning? The constitution and BOR was also cherry picked to by slave owners and segregationist to show why it was justified to do what they are doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you have no 'point,' just ignorance of the law and a desire to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.
> 
> That Slavery and Jim Crow were once legal and rendered void by Constitutional amendment has no bearing on the fact that an embryo/fetus is not entitled to Constitutional protections.
> 
> You're attempting to conflate two completely different issues, one having nothing to do with another.
> 
> You're also at liberty to seek to 'amend' the Constitution to repeal the 14th Amendment, thus voiding its jurisprudence, and 'amending' the Constitution again making an embryo/fetus a 'person.'
> 
> Until you realize that 'goal,' however, it remains a fact of Constitutional law that an embryo/fetus is not a 'person,' and not entitled to Constitutional protections.
Click to expand...

I have no desire to expand and increase authority of the government  over individuals, in fact I want the authority it has currently rolled back. Especially when it gives one group the power over another group. 

You are the one displaying ignorance of the law, because a fetus does have right to life (unless it's unwanted). If someone kills a pregnant women it is a double homicide. The unwanted part  is the one that make just as much sense as slavery did back then.

I know that you don't believe it's protected by rights, but why? Is it not human? is it not life? When do you define "personhood"? Is it at our imaginary lines of trimesters? Is it at our imaginary lines of viability? Is it ok to terminate someone on life support with a very good prognosis? 

And I guess it's ok to amend the constitution for something like abolition of slavery, but not ok to amend any thing else? 

And what did I say that was ignorant of constitutional law? Is the BOR and constitution not negative rights imposed on the government? And you like to champion the right of the individual, but I know you can think of certain cases where that is not applied. Let's say a Christian baker should get fined 135000 for not baking a wedding cake. How are his individual rights being trumped, and what happens when a gay baker decides not to bake a cake for west-boor baptist church? Does he not Have a right to refuse service? It's people like you that see things they don't like in the world and want government to step in and stop it, where is your sense of individuality then? You could try say that with me and abortion, but I haven't heard a good case on why that fetus does not have constitutional protection when it is unwanted.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

sakinago said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a little complicated if you can deal with it. See post 1486 Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about a 10 year old rape girl. I'm talking about your every day abortion. Does that fetus have value?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not talking about the ten year old either. There are some things that you can't dumb down to a yes or no answer. Did you read my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without  conflict of my other values?
> 
> So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?
> 
> Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.
> 
> It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort.  However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.
Click to expand...


You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time  to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.

Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to  a person.


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about a 10 year old rape girl. I'm talking about your every day abortion. Does that fetus have value?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about the ten year old either. There are some things that you can't dumb down to a yes or no answer. Did you read my post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without  conflict of my other values?
> 
> So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?
> 
> Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.
> 
> It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort.  However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time  to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.
> 
> Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to  a person.
Click to expand...

You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.

You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?

And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?

You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

sakinago said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about the ten year old either. There are some things that you can't dumb down to a yes or no answer. Did you read my post?
> 
> 
> 
> Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without  conflict of my other values?
> 
> So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?
> 
> Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.
> 
> It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort.  However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time  to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.
> 
> Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to  a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.
> 
> You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
> 
> And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
> 
> You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
Click to expand...


You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without  conflict of my other values?
> 
> So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?
> 
> Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.
> 
> It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort.  However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time  to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.
> 
> Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to  a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.
> 
> You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
> 
> And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
> 
> You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
Click to expand...

Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.

And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

sakinago said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.
> 
> It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort.  However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.
> 
> 
> 
> So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time  to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.
> 
> Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to  a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.
> 
> You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
> 
> And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
> 
> You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
Click to expand...


It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap

A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned

A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.

End of story


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time  to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.
> 
> Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to  a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.
> 
> You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
> 
> And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
> 
> You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
Click to expand...

You're the only one making the comparison of a slave to a fetus. And to prove my point, when did I start use that argument? I'll give you a hint, I wasn't saying that anybody owns fetuses. So answer that with what I was responding to, and how I said it, you'll get your answer there. And yea I guess you won your imaginary argument with me, that you can't compare a fetus to a slave...except for the fact that they are both undeniably HUMAN LIFE. I can win imaginary arguments too.

And personhood is nothing but a muddy water argument, the smart ones on the left don't even use it. Reason being you could say the same about the severely autistic, or severely retarded. So why not terminate them?  And I'd love to hear your definition of personhood. So do please tell. 

And what we learn from genetics, especially epigenetics, is that a lot of what we turn out to be, is brought about by events and conditions while in the womb. This is why there can be identical twins, one healthy twin, and a twin with a GENETIC defect despite having the same DNA. But according to you it (personhood) all starts at birth, displaying a complete lack of science to fit your agenda. And even then, under your definition of personhood, a mother should be allowed to terminate pregnancy as long as she hasn't given birth. So, if personhood is the basis of the moral argument for pro-choice then why is it wrong to terminate a fetus in the 3rd trimester? 

I notice you also using the word zygote, how does a zygote pertain to abortion? Kudos to the mother who knows she pregnant within 30 hours, a blood test wouldn't even be able to confirm that.


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time  to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.
> 
> Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to  a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.
> 
> You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
> 
> And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
> 
> You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
Click to expand...

And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> *This thread has been proven by forensic scientists to be a lie.*



Like you would recognize forensic science if it crawled up your pants leg and bit you on the left ass cheek.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

sakinago said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time  to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.
> 
> Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to  a person.
> 
> 
> 
> You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.
> 
> You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
> 
> And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
> 
> You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
Click to expand...

I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.
> 
> You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
> 
> And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
> 
> You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story
Click to expand...

The sun revolves around the earth end of story! 

I can do that too, sounds like someone who throws horse crap. Only answers the questions that align with their beliefs. 

But yea your mind isn't totally closed, you don't have to answer any questions, and just state what you believe as fact, and End of story.  Yea your real open to discussion there buddy.


----------



## ScienceRocks

China does this all the time...


----------



## Vigilante

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.
> 
> You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
> 
> And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
> 
> You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story
Click to expand...


I see we have a NEW complete moron of the subversive, stupid variety. He believes that if you call an UNBORN HUMAN a fetus, it's NOT an unborn human... Much like these scumbags do with Illegal aliens when they call them UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.... What a fucking idiot!  Hey asshole, do you realize that your FETUS has a completely different DNA than it's HOST FEMALE (you see, IF I call the mother a different name, it takes on a whole new meaning!)

Please, perform a post abortion on yourself, and it will be one less piece of FECAL MATTER that uses up our oxygen and food supply!


----------



## MaryL

SassyIrishLass said:


> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*


 I have know innocent people that died under atrocious conditions. It's god's will. Those people donated organs that helped the rest of us. Maybe abortion is just another  part of God's plan. To help others. Because the horrible death of any innocent is preordained by god, so that they may help those that survive.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

sakinago said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sun revolves around the earth end of story!
> 
> I can do that too, sounds like someone who throws horse crap. Only answers the questions that align with their beliefs.
> 
> But yea your mind isn't totally closed, you don't have to answer any questions, and just state what you believe as fact, and End of story.  Yea your real open to discussion there buddy.
Click to expand...

I'm not open to discussion?? You really didn't read this did you?
Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You have not responded to or attempted to refute a single point that I made. All that you have done is to obfuscate the issue with extraneous  and irrelevant distractions
I'm not open to discussion? You really didn't read this did you?


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sun revolves around the earth end of story!
> 
> I can do that too, sounds like someone who throws horse crap. Only answers the questions that align with their beliefs.
> 
> But yea your mind isn't totally closed, you don't have to answer any questions, and just state what you believe as fact, and End of story.  Yea your real open to discussion there buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not open to discussion?? You really didn't read this did you?
> Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> You have not responded to or attempted to refute a single point that I made. All that you have done is to obfuscate the issue with extraneous  and irrelevant distractions
> I'm not open to discussion? You really didn't read this did you?
Click to expand...

Yes I did. That does not change that you believe there is no protection under constitutional rights to a fetus based on "personhood."  Or the fact that you only see the fetus in it's current state, that on it's own it probably wouldn't live without the mother (but fail to see that in a few months it's no longer ok to terminate). 

So I am correct in that a fetus only gains right to life if it is wanted?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Vigilante said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see we have a NEW complete moron of the subversive, stupid variety. He believes that if you call an UNBORN HUMAN a fetus, it's NOT an unborn human... Much like these scumbags do with Illegal aliens when they call them UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.... What a fucking idiot!  Hey asshole, do you realize that your FETUS has a completely different DNA than it's HOST FEMALE (you see, IF I call the mother a different name, it takes on a whole new meaning!)
> 
> Please, perform a post abortion on yourself, and it will be one less piece of FECAL MATTER that uses up our oxygen and food supply!
Click to expand...

Your vicious rhetoric and moronic insults do nothing for your credibility. I you had any confidence in your argument you would be able to present it in a calm and rational manner. Obviously you can't. You don 't strike me as being that bright or tightly wrapped.


----------



## Vigilante

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see we have a NEW complete moron of the subversive, stupid variety. He believes that if you call an UNBORN HUMAN a fetus, it's NOT an unborn human... Much like these scumbags do with Illegal aliens when they call them UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.... What a fucking idiot!  Hey asshole, do you realize that your FETUS has a completely different DNA than it's HOST FEMALE (you see, IF I call the mother a different name, it takes on a whole new meaning!)
> 
> Please, perform a post abortion on yourself, and it will be one less piece of FECAL MATTER that uses up our oxygen and food supply!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your vicious rhetoric and moronic insults do nothing for you credibility. I you had any confidence in your argument you would be able to present it in a calm and rational manner. Obviously you can't
Click to expand...

When address a piece of pond scum on these forums, I post in SUBVERSIVE, a language which ALL of you dirt bags understand! Trying to talk rationally to you fuckers goes nowhere... That is also why I use PICTURES, as you 2 digit IQ'd knuckledraggers tend to understand them better than words!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

sakinago said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
> 
> 
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sun revolves around the earth end of story!
> 
> I can do that too, sounds like someone who throws horse crap. Only answers the questions that align with their beliefs.
> 
> But yea your mind isn't totally closed, you don't have to answer any questions, and just state what you believe as fact, and End of story.  Yea your real open to discussion there buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not open to discussion?? You really didn't read this did you?
> Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> You have not responded to or attempted to refute a single point that I made. All that you have done is to obfuscate the issue with extraneous  and irrelevant distractions
> I'm not open to discussion? You really didn't read this did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I did. That does not change that you believe there is no protection under constitutional rights to a fetus based on "personhood."  Or the fact that you only see the fetus in it's current state, that on it's own it probably wouldn't live without the mother (but fail to see that in a few months it's no longer ok to terminate).
> 
> So I am correct in that a fetus only gains right to life if it is wanted?
Click to expand...


Horseshit. It has nothing to do with it being wanted and having the potential to become a human being does not make it a human being.


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see we have a NEW complete moron of the subversive, stupid variety. He believes that if you call an UNBORN HUMAN a fetus, it's NOT an unborn human... Much like these scumbags do with Illegal aliens when they call them UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.... What a fucking idiot!  Hey asshole, do you realize that your FETUS has a completely different DNA than it's HOST FEMALE (you see, IF I call the mother a different name, it takes on a whole new meaning!)
> 
> Please, perform a post abortion on yourself, and it will be one less piece of FECAL MATTER that uses up our oxygen and food supply!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your vicious rhetoric and moronic insults do nothing for you credibility. I you had any confidence in your argument you would be able to present it in a calm and rational manner. Obviously you can't
Click to expand...

I'm calm and rational, your the one using words like horsesh*t. I've been presenting without deflecting. You have been deflecting by turning the issue into comparing a slave and a fetus. 
And even though you skirt the issue, you still admit that a fetus does not have protection unless it's wanted, just by using more words. I'm just trying to clarify your position.


----------



## sealybobo

Manonthestreet said:


> I thought it was the evil Jews doing this...not good libs


You should be denied the cures these little bastards provided us. Nothing that was found threw stem cell


----------



## Vigilante

sealybobo said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it was the evil Jews doing this...not good libs
> 
> 
> 
> You should be denied the cures these little bastards provided us. Nothing that was found threw stem cell
Click to expand...

Of the 80 treatments and cures which have come about from stem cells, all have come from adult stem cells – not embryonic ones.

150 human-animal hybrids grown in UK labs: Embryos have been produced secretively for the past three years -- Sott.net


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sun revolves around the earth end of story!
> 
> I can do that too, sounds like someone who throws horse crap. Only answers the questions that align with their beliefs.
> 
> But yea your mind isn't totally closed, you don't have to answer any questions, and just state what you believe as fact, and End of story.  Yea your real open to discussion there buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not open to discussion?? You really didn't read this did you?
> Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> You have not responded to or attempted to refute a single point that I made. All that you have done is to obfuscate the issue with extraneous  and irrelevant distractions
> I'm not open to discussion? You really didn't read this did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I did. That does not change that you believe there is no protection under constitutional rights to a fetus based on "personhood."  Or the fact that you only see the fetus in it's current state, that on it's own it probably wouldn't live without the mother (but fail to see that in a few months it's no longer ok to terminate).
> 
> So I am correct in that a fetus only gains right to life if it is wanted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit. It has nothing to do with it being wanted and having the potential to become a human being does not make it a human being.
Click to expand...

You can't admit to your own views. Or define terms in your own views. What constitutes personhood? And do you not believe that a fetus only has protection if it is wanted? 

It's ok to terminate a case like schiavo, but not ok if the doctor gives her a really good prognosis.  
Am I correct in this?

The only choice you recognize is the choice to terminate, not the choice to participate in reproduction in the first place.


----------



## sealybobo

The life gro


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in regular everyday abortions, it may be complicated to you because it presents a conflict. Conflict being that based on being unwanted the fetus looses it's right to life, as opposed to the wanted fetus who if they were to die at the hands of someone still inside the womb, that person gets tried for murder. But that is your progressive thinking is unable to decipher why one has right to life and the other does not based on desire of the mother (up to a certain time period I might add). I can answer that question that yes, that fetus has as much value as the wanted fetus, but how am I able to answer that question if I am so stuck in my ways? Am I the one stuck in my ways by being able to answer that without  conflict of my other values?
> 
> So am I correct in the fact that the fetus gains it's value strictly based on the desire of the mother to birth it or not?
> 
> Let me present another question. If there was a hypothetical test to see if your child, while still in the womb, we're to be gay or straight, would it be ok for the mother to abort the gay fetus based on the fact it will be gay in the future?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went in to great detail about my thoughts on the fetus in the post that I directed you to. No, the values of the fetus is not based on whether or not the mother wants it. However, the mother does have a good deal to say about the fate of the fetus. If the woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy before it is viable that is not murder because there are legitimate questions-which I raised -as to whether or not it is a human life AND because the rights of the mother count also. If a third party kills an unborn child, that may be a different story. I don't know under what circumstances that child-to-be would be considered a murder victim, but if it is viable at that point it certainly should be. No to complicated for my liberal mind at all.
> 
> It is beyond me what you are bringing up the question of homosexuality at this point. That is like asking if the parent wanted a male and was carrying a female. I would consider both to be frivolous reasons to abort.  However, she does have a right to privacy and control of her body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it does not have value unless it is wanted, just like blacks did not have value unless they were born in the north. The slave owners right to property trumps the slaves right to liberty. Just like the mothers right to "privacy" trumps the fetus right to life. The fetus is not a human, and it is alive, try to prove that it isn't. If not, then anybody with the power of attorney should be able to terminate someone on life support no matter the prognosis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked a question about whether or not I thought that a fetus has value. I responded by pointing to the complexity of that issue and basically saying that the value is relative and it is not a simple yes of no answer. I also redirected you-for the third time  to my previous post , in which I discussed that issue at length but apparently you still have not read it and if you did, you didn't understand it. Instead, you again misrepresent me by claiming that I am saying that the fetus has no value.
> 
> Your comparing the value of the fetus to that of slaves is ridiculous. It is a logical fallacy in the form of a false equivalency designed to obfuscate the issue. A black person has value regardless of where they worn born. A zygote or a fetus cannot be compared to  a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.
> 
> You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
> 
> And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
> 
> You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
Click to expand...

The life growing inside a woman has no rights. If a woman catches it in the first month or two she can terminate the pregnancy for any reason she wants. If it's retarded she can put it out of its and her misery should she choose even deep into the pregnancy.

Every abortion is the right decision. If she went through with it it was the right decision for her at the time.


----------



## sealybobo

How many horrible people have kids? And they raise horrible people. If you have a gm Chrysler Ford strong middle class where people can afford kids they have them. When you have Walmart America now being the largest American employer, you get more abortions.

And if you want less abortions make free iud's part of the aca.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misrepresent what I say when referring to slavery. I'm not comparing slave to fetus, I'm comparing the ARGUMENT to owning slaves and right of property, with the ARGUMENT of right to privacy and termination of an unwanted fetus. I think that was obvious.
> 
> You say that no, the fetus does not have protection under constitutional rights...correct?
> 
> And I assume that you believe that the murderer of the pregnant mother should be tried as a double homicide if the mother wants the fetus...correct?
> 
> You also state that value is relative correct? Relative to what exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story
Click to expand...


"I don't know shit about science, but I announce my ignorance as fact!  End of story!"

Oh, would that it really WAS the end of your story.  I haven't much patience with slapstick comedy.


----------



## Cecilie1200

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sun revolves around the earth end of story!
> 
> I can do that too, sounds like someone who throws horse crap. Only answers the questions that align with their beliefs.
> 
> But yea your mind isn't totally closed, you don't have to answer any questions, and just state what you believe as fact, and End of story.  Yea your real open to discussion there buddy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not open to discussion?? You really didn't read this did you?
> Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather | Page 149 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> You have not responded to or attempted to refute a single point that I made. All that you have done is to obfuscate the issue with extraneous  and irrelevant distractions
> I'm not open to discussion? You really didn't read this did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I did. That does not change that you believe there is no protection under constitutional rights to a fetus based on "personhood."  Or the fact that you only see the fetus in it's current state, that on it's own it probably wouldn't live without the mother (but fail to see that in a few months it's no longer ok to terminate).
> 
> So I am correct in that a fetus only gains right to life if it is wanted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horseshit. It has nothing to do with it being wanted and having the potential to become a human being does not make it a human being.
Click to expand...


"Horseshit.  It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with me insisting that you accept our made-up 'feelz' as the debate parameters."

If you can find a medical textbook ANYWHERE that supports your "potential to become a human being", "personhood" schtick, perhaps we'll consider it relevant.  Until then, I suspect we all have too many brain cells to conduct the debate on the level you want it on.

It never ceases to amaze me that leftists can prattle on about their worship of science while simultaneously knowing nothing about it, and holding opinions directly opposed to it.


----------



## sealybobo

Cecilie1200 said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I don't know shit about science, but I announce my ignorance as fact!  End of story!"
> 
> Oh, would that it really WAS the end of your story.  I haven't much patience with slapstick comedy.
Click to expand...

Right. You don't know shit.  We finally agree on something.


----------



## sealybobo

sakinago said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are comparing the rights of a fetus to the rights of a slave . It's a logical fallacy as I have pointed out. You can't squirm out of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Was I correct in what you are saying. And if not please correct.
> 
> And I'm sorry you can't think hypothetically, but you really can't see the comparison in the arguments of property and privacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was about fetuses and slaves. You couldn't win on that so now it's about property and privacy. The fact is that you can't make a coherent argument about the personhood of a fetus or against abortion so you muddy the waters with irrelevant crap
> 
> A fetus is not a person  . A born human being is a person and can't be owned
> 
> A fetus is part of the woman body hence the right to privacy.
> 
> End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I take this as confirmation that no a fetus does not have inherent value. It requires desire of the mother to raise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know what it is that you think that you're proving here, but you seem to think that if you throw enough equine excrement at the wall , something will stick. It's not sticking.  A fetus is not a human being and a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy. End of story
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sun revolves around the earth end of story!
> 
> I can do that too, sounds like someone who throws horse crap. Only answers the questions that align with their beliefs.
> 
> But yea your mind isn't totally closed, you don't have to answer any questions, and just state what you believe as fact, and End of story.  Yea your real open to discussion there buddy.
Click to expand...

I hope you were kidding when you said the sun revolves around the earth.  But interesting that before science that is what religions thought.  And if you questioned them they burned you.

Here is the truth.  A little baby fetus is a living human to be.  A potential human.  It's why we don't have funerals when women have miscarriages.  It's why abortion isn't murder.  

Life just isn't so precious that humans should be forced to have a baby they don't want.  When life becomes that precious maybe we will stop having abortions.  But right now, we are overpopulated.  I almost think we should be encouraging more abortions.  Or at least put a IUD in your cooter and stop producing kids you can't raise or afford.  We need to cut the population in half.  

The oceans, in all their vast mystery, seem infinite, full of possibilities, and full of fish! For that reason, it’s hard to imagine that some day the oceans’ resources might dry up and the fish populations will dwindle to practically nothing. But according to scientists, that is exactly what is going to happen if we continue fishing the way we do. It is estimated that by 2050, the oceans fish populations will be down 90 percent from what they were.


----------



## Lakhota

I sure hope this thread doesn't incite any death threats against Planned Parenthood.


----------



## sakinago

Lakhota said:


> I sure hope this thread doesn't incite any death threats against Planned Parenthood.


Oh stop, you really want it to lakhota. And you should be more worried about BLM and how that movement is inticibg ppl to kill cops. I'm sure you'll still defend them bc they're on your political "side"


----------



## Lakhota

sakinago said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure hope this thread doesn't incite any death threats against Planned Parenthood.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh stop, you really want it to lakhota. And you should be more worried about BLM and how that movement is inticibg ppl to kill cops. I'm sure you'll still defend them bc they're on your political "side"
Click to expand...


Black lives do matter.  However, I'm currently more concerned with the lies in this thread.

*Analysis of Center for Medical Progress Videos*


----------



## sakinago

Lakhota said:


> sakinago said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure hope this thread doesn't incite any death threats against Planned Parenthood.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh stop, you really want it to lakhota. And you should be more worried about BLM and how that movement is inticibg ppl to kill cops. I'm sure you'll still defend them bc they're on your political "side"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Black lives do matter.  However, I'm currently more concerned with the lies in this thread.
> 
> *Analysis of Center for Medical Progress Videos*
Click to expand...

Really because 3 cops died in the past couple weeks...and I don't see any pp center personnel getting murdered. So why is this a priority for you. Black lives do matter, but cops lives don't. I don't hear you in an uproar when blm chants "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon." Quite a contrast to "defund planned parenthood"


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Obama Slowly Tortures Republicans By Giving Planned Parenthood $1M Obamacare Grant (VIDEO)

Like a cat playing with a mouse, President Obama is once again torturing poor little Republicans by giving Planned Parenthood a $1M grant from the Affordable Care Act. Obama, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood – the trifecta of Republican pearl clutching. 

The $1M is part of a much larger package of federal grants going to groups that promote the Affordable Care Act. Nearly $70 million will go to 100 groups in 34 states. Planned Parenthood will get part of that.  Obama Slowly Tortures Republicans By Giving Planned Parenthood $1M Obamacare Grant (VIDEO)


----------



## sakinago

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Obama Slowly Tortures Republicans By Giving Planned Parenthood $1M Obamacare Grant (VIDEO)
> 
> Like a cat playing with a mouse, President Obama is once again torturing poor little Republicans by giving Planned Parenthood a $1M grant from the Affordable Care Act. Obama, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood – the trifecta of Republican pearl clutching.
> 
> The $1M is part of a much larger package of federal grants going to groups that promote the Affordable Care Act. Nearly $70 million will go to 100 groups in 34 states. Planned Parenthood will get part of that.  Obama Slowly Tortures Republicans By Giving Planned Parenthood $1M Obamacare Grant (VIDEO)


Ah torture one side of the political spectrum, it's good bc they're against us. That's some very telling rhetoric there progressive patriot


----------



## HenryBHough

ProgressivePatriot is *NOT* an oxymoron.

Just a plain old moron.

But that's only by way of clarification for innocent newbies.


----------



## NYcarbineer

NYcarbineer said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any liberals have an opinion on Planned Parenthood illegally selling body parts?    Not clumps of cells, but human body parts from the aborted fetuses?
> 
> I know you guys go all out to defend that Sanger bitch, but none of you are upset with today's PP committing a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's wait for an indictment.
Click to expand...


Oh look!  We have indictments!!

Felony charges for 2 who secretly filmed Planned Parenthood


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Antiabortion activists face 15 felony charges over undercover videos ... California Charges Duo Behind Secret Planned Parenthood Videos ... Felony Charges for 2 Who Secretly Filmed Planned Parenthood David Daleiden, activist from secret Planned Parenthood videos ... Planned Parenthood video makers face felony charges in Calif. Two activists who filmed undercover videos of Planned Parenthood ...






FILE - In this April 29, 2016 file photo, David Robert Daleiden, right, leaves a courtroom after a hearing in Houston. California prosecutors say two anti-abortion activists who made undercover videos of themselves trying to buy fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood have been charged with 15 felony counts of invasion of privacy. State Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the charges Tuesday, March 28, 2017, against Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan, File) The Associated Press


*


----------



## gipper

NYcarbineer said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any liberals have an opinion on Planned Parenthood illegally selling body parts?    Not clumps of cells, but human body parts from the aborted fetuses?
> 
> I know you guys go all out to defend that Sanger bitch, but none of you are upset with today's PP committing a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's wait for an indictment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look!  We have indictments!!
> 
> Felony charges for 2 who secretly filmed Planned Parenthood
Click to expand...

We can't have the horrors of PP exposed.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*The Trump Rubes only want Privacy Rights for the Orange Anus Trump*


----------



## NYcarbineer

gipper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any liberals have an opinion on Planned Parenthood illegally selling body parts?    Not clumps of cells, but human body parts from the aborted fetuses?
> 
> I know you guys go all out to defend that Sanger bitch, but none of you are upset with today's PP committing a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's wait for an indictment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look!  We have indictments!!
> 
> Felony charges for 2 who secretly filmed Planned Parenthood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can't have the horrors of PP exposed.
Click to expand...


One vote for crime.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lakhota said:


> I sure hope this thread doesn't incite any death threats against Planned Parenthood.



I sure hope you understand that the blame for attacks against Planned Parenthood belong with the attacker, not with people refusing to self-censor themselves to suit you.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Cecilie1200 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure hope this thread doesn't incite any death threats against Planned Parenthood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure hope you understand that the blame for attacks against Planned Parenthood belong with the attacker, not with people refusing to self-censor themselves to suit you.
Click to expand...

Not when the agit prop language of calling Doctors murderers and calling them Baby killers etc is used to stoke nut bags


----------



## Faun

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Antiabortion activists face 15 felony charges over undercover videos ... California Charges Duo Behind Secret Planned Parenthood Videos ... Felony Charges for 2 Who Secretly Filmed Planned Parenthood David Daleiden, activist from secret Planned Parenthood videos ... Planned Parenthood video makers face felony charges in Calif. Two activists who filmed undercover videos of Planned Parenthood ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FILE - In this April 29, 2016 file photo, David Robert Daleiden, right, leaves a courtroom after a hearing in Houston. California prosecutors say two anti-abortion activists who made undercover videos of themselves trying to buy fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood have been charged with 15 felony counts of invasion of privacy. State Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the charges Tuesday, March 28, 2017, against Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. (AP Photo/Pat Sullivan, File) The Associated Press
> 
> *


----------



## theHawk

SassyIrishLass said:


> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*



Committing an act of journalism against the abortion industry is a mortal sin to progressives.

This is proof that progressives hate the first amendment, and will defend the murder of the unborn above all other causes.


----------



## Faun

theHawk said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committing an act of journalism against the abortion industry is a mortal sin to progressives.
> 
> This is proof that progressives hate the first amendment, and will defend the murder of the unborn above all other causes.
Click to expand...

It is when you break the law to investigate someone who's not breaking the law.


----------



## 2aguy

NYcarbineer said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do any liberals have an opinion on Planned Parenthood illegally selling body parts?    Not clumps of cells, but human body parts from the aborted fetuses?
> 
> I know you guys go all out to defend that Sanger bitch, but none of you are upset with today's PP committing a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's wait for an indictment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look!  We have indictments!!
> 
> Felony charges for 2 who secretly filmed Planned Parenthood
Click to expand...



Yeah...and you morons had them in Texas...and then they were dropped too....


----------



## 2aguy

Faun said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committing an act of journalism against the abortion industry is a mortal sin to progressives.
> 
> This is proof that progressives hate the first amendment, and will defend the murder of the unborn above all other causes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is when you break the law to investigate someone who's not breaking the law.
Click to expand...



They are selling dead baby, body parts......they are breaking the law....


----------



## Faun

2aguy said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committing an act of journalism against the abortion industry is a mortal sin to progressives.
> 
> This is proof that progressives hate the first amendment, and will defend the murder of the unborn above all other causes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is when you break the law to investigate someone who's not breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are selling dead baby, body parts......they are breaking the law....
Click to expand...

That accusation of yours was investigated in no less than 11 different states. Which one found them in violation of the law?


----------



## NYcarbineer

2aguy said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, this is as bad as it can get
> 
> *Video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions*
> 
> An undercover video released this morning shows a national leader of Planned Parenthood admitting that the abortion provider uses the illegal partial birth abortion procedure to sell intact fetal body parts.
> 
> The average asking price for fetal body parts? Between $30 and $100 per specimen.
> 
> Dr. Deborah Nucatola has been senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood since February 2009, where she oversees medical practices at all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. She has been employed by Planned Parenthood for more than a decade. She also performs abortions up to 24 weeks in Los Angeles.
> 
> In the video, she met with investigators posing as buyers from a human biologic company on July 25, 2014.
> 
> 
> While casually sipping wine and eating salad, Dr. Nucatola revealed that she charges $30 to $100 per specimen, and that fetal livers are especially in demand – although “a lot of people want intact hearts these days,” and she has had requests for lungs and “lower extremities.”
> 
> Planned Parenthood affiliates “absolutely” want to offer such organs, she said.
> 
> Nucatola admitted that Planned Parenthood's abortionists take great care not to appear to be profiteering off fetal body parts. She said, “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, 'The clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off of this.'”
> 
> *The issue is not merely PR – there is also the little matter of federal law. Trafficking in human body parts is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $500,000.*
> 
> *BREAKING Undercover video catches Planned Parenthood selling baby body parts from illegal partial-birth abortions News LifeSite*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committing an act of journalism against the abortion industry is a mortal sin to progressives.
> 
> This is proof that progressives hate the first amendment, and will defend the murder of the unborn above all other causes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is when you break the law to investigate someone who's not breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are selling dead baby, body parts......they are breaking the law....
Click to expand...


lol, so you don't object to illegally investigating Trump in case he may have broken the law?


----------



## mamooth

The lies in those faked videos inspired a murderous pro-life terrorist to kill 3 people in Colorado Springs. The terrorist even admitted that in court, that he was inspired to violence by the video.

And all the pro-lifers here are good with that. It's what they actively desire, more such terrorism.

You know, if you have to actively lie to push your cause, as pro-lifers have to do, then your cause isn't moral.


----------

