Anti-abortion activists indicted for undercover videos smearing Planned Parenthood

[NYcarbineer]

It's always funny when an ignorant troll sitting in his mommy's basement like you calls others stupid



It's always the people who are too unhinged to govern their own lives who want to tell everyone else what decisions to make.

Your extremist lunacy does not give some group of wackos the right to lie and fabricate like the people who just got their ugly butts indicted.

From the link. Which you are clearly incapable of following:

“Maybe you should stop trying to divest women of their rights just because you're a misogynist theocrat.

When did women get the right to force me to pay for their abortions?

Federal funds cannot be used to pay for abortion.

Money is fungible. We all know that money given to PP is used to pay for abortions. Only morons like you are fooled.

Just think ... all you have to do is prove that and you can accomplish what the center for medical progress failed to do -- bring down Planned Parenthood.

I don't need to prove what is patently obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

You seem to have a lot of friends whose intellect consists of 2 brain cells.

 

[Faun]

When you got the right to be stupid.

Insults are not a substitute for facts and logic.

You obviously can't answer the question.

What other answer is there to such a moronic question given your question is built on the ignorance that you're paying for abortions?

Facts are "ignorance" only to liberals. If the government is giving money to PP, which performs abortions, then I'm paying for abortions. There's no two ways about it.

Imbecile.... it's not a "fact" until you prove it.

Until you do, it's a delusion, not a fact.

That's indisputable proof of your idiocy. Facts are facts, regardless of whether someone proves them or not.

And avoiding proving it under the pathetic guise that you don't have to because it's so obvious to you only further demonstrates your dementia.

So either prove your claims or you prove you're just another crazy conservative......

Total horseshit. I don't have to prove the sun comes up in the East. Everyone knows that already. Likewise I don't have to prove that PP uses government money to pay for abortions.

Your failed logical fallacy by means of equivocation are noted and laughed at.



You prove you're just a delusional crazy conservative.

Not that more proof was necessary, mind you.

 

[Dhara]

The point is not whether women will seek abortions legal or not. The point is will we allow women to get safe procedures or not?

Worldwide, there are 19 million unsafe abortions a year, and they kill 70,000 women (accounting for 13 percent of maternal deaths), mostly in poor countries like Tanzania where abortion is illegal, according to the World Health Organization. More than two million women a year suffer serious complications. According to Unicef, unsafe abortions cause 4 percent of deaths among pregnant women in Africa, 6 percent in Asia and 12 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02abort.html?_r=0

 

[easyt65]

The Lamborghini nonsense is absurd as it was said in jest.

So now you declare yourself capable of speaking for the doctor in the video, having the authority to declare the negotiations for a fetus' body parts for the price of a Lamborghini was just 'having a little fun'?!

 

[emilynghiem]

Churches and private charities do a better job than the government. They can help poor people without destroying the family unit.

Why aren't they doing it?

Because there is no way they can.

Correct.

Churches and private providers lack the resources, funding, and expertise to appropriately and lawfully administer to the poor, low income families, and the elderly.

Ensuring the health, well-being, and safety of the most vulnerable members of society has always been the responsibility of the people and the public assistance agencies the people have charged with the task of helping the less fortunate.

C_Clayton_Jones
What about the state or federal govt providing the facilities,
but the SOCIAL programs inside (whether rehab for prisons to treat
criminal illness, or therapy for mental and physical illness that use
Spiritual Healing to reduce the costs and increase the effectiveness)
NOT be restricted by govt which only handles the medical and health regulations
but DOESN'T FINE OR PENALIZE PEOPLE for paying for or providing
for health care other ways besides just insurance or exchanges regulated by govt.

The govt can handle security and health/medical regulations so programs are safe,
but as for SOCIAL decisions and choices, who gives authority to federal govt
to dictate, regulate and mandate that process for people?

You can have this if you want it.
I don't agree, but respect Constitutional limits on federal govt
that require a voted on Constitutional amendment before granting such authority to the federal levels of govt.

I am prochoice, and find these federal mandates to obliterate and contradict
beliefs in free choice by fining, regulating and penalizing citizens instead of respecting free choice
in how to pay for and provide for health care to cover the most people in the most cost effective and
sustainable way.

Insurance is not proven to cover everyone, but spiritual healing would and it is free.
So if spiritual healing cannot be mandated by govt to cut costs and save more lives,
then how can insurance be mandated.

 

[Dhara]

. In Romania, where abortion was available upon request until 1966, the abortion mortality ratio was 20 per 100,000 live births in 1960. New legal restrictions were imposed in 1966, and by 1989 the ratio reached 148 deaths per 100,000 live births. The restrictions were reversed in 1989, and within a year the ratio dropped to 68 of 100,000 live births; by 2002 it was as low as 9 deaths per 100,000 births (Figure 3). Similarly, in South Africa, after abortion became legal and available on request in 1997, abortion-related infection decreased by 52%, and the abortion mortality ratio from 1998 to 2001 dropped by 91% from its 1994 level..6

Evidence demonstrates that liberalizing abortion laws to allow services to be provided openly by skilled practitioners can reduce the rate of abortion-related morbidity and mortality.
Main Points

The World Health Organization deems unsafe abortion one of the easiest preventable causes of maternal mortality.
Data suggest that even as the overall abortion rate has declined, the proportion of unsafe abortion is on the rise.
Methods of unsafe abortion include drinking toxic fluids; inflicting direct injury to the vagina, cervix, or rectum; or inflicting external injury to the abdomen. Complications also arise from unskilled providers causing uterine perforation and infections.
Worldwide, 5 million women are hospitalized each year for treatment of abortion-related complications, and abortion-related deaths leave 220,000 children motherless.
Data indicate an association between unsafe abortion and restrictive abortion laws.
Preventing unintended pregnancy, providing better access to health care, and liberalizing abortion laws to allow services to be openly provided can reduce the rate of abortion-related morbidity and mortality.
Unsafe Abortion: Unnecessary Maternal Mortality

 

[easyt65]

Your failed logical fallacy by means of equivocation are noted and laughed at.

Do you believe in personal responsibility?

Do you think someone who gets pregnant after making the choice to have sex without having taken preventative measures before hand should pay for their own abortion if they get pregnant and decide to go that route?

Or do you believe that others should be forced to pay for the consequences of other's choices?

It's really simple, Faun. You, Jill, and others want to try to make the issue / question much more complicated than it is or has to be. These 3 questions are simple....just give me a straight-up answer on them.

 

[Dhara]

Your failed logical fallacy by means of equivocation are noted and laughed at.

Do you believe in personal responsibility?

Do you think someone who gets pregnant after making the choice to have sex without having taken preventative measures before hand should pay for their own abortion if they get pregnant and decide to go that route?

Or do you believe that others should be forced to pay for the consequences of other's choices?

It's really simple, Faun. You, Jill, and others want to try to make the issue / question much more complicated than it is or has to be. These 3 questions are simple....just give me a straight-up answer on them.

Personal responsibility. That means you're pro-choice. Thank you. I am too. The decision rests with the pregnant woman, her family and her doctor alone.

 

[Dhara]

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

Sister Joan Chittister, Benedictine, (Catholic) Nun

 

[emilynghiem]

The point is not whether women will seek abortions legal or not. The point is will we allow women to get safe procedures or not?

Worldwide, there are 19 million unsafe abortions a year, and they kill 70,000 women (accounting for 13 percent of maternal deaths), mostly in poor countries like Tanzania where abortion is illegal, according to the World Health Organization. More than two million women a year suffer serious complications. According to Unicef, unsafe abortions cause 4 percent of deaths among pregnant women in Africa, 6 percent in Asia and 12 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02abort.html?_r=0

Dhara this can be set up without forcing prolife people to fund it.
Look at how much money the Democratic party candidates can raise to lobby for prochoice support.
Just put that money directly into building more medical programs and facilities to provide care directly,
such as through medical schools and internships, and then you can have all the health care you want to provide to the people you want to serve.

Look at the billions lost on a failed prison and mental health system.
So people who believe in funding medical treatment for mentally ill
instead of executions can invest funding in converting prisons into medical treatment centers.

By separating by political beliefs, you can control where your money goes.
There's plenty already being paid in if we didn't waste it on programs that don't work.

Why not give taxpayers a break for investing directly in the programs of their choice:
A. prochoice and right to health care in place of funding the death penalty by converting prisons into medical programs
B. prolife and free market health care such as by organizing resources around banks or VA reform etc.

If people's beliefs clash, then let's just acknowledge that instead of trying to impose one on the other.
Let both sides get their way and fund the programs of their choice that match their beliefs, just like choices of which religious schools or charities to support

 

[Dhara]

The point is not whether women will seek abortions legal or not. The point is will we allow women to get safe procedures or not?

Worldwide, there are 19 million unsafe abortions a year, and they kill 70,000 women (accounting for 13 percent of maternal deaths), mostly in poor countries like Tanzania where abortion is illegal, according to the World Health Organization. More than two million women a year suffer serious complications. According to Unicef, unsafe abortions cause 4 percent of deaths among pregnant women in Africa, 6 percent in Asia and 12 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02abort.html?_r=0

Dhara this can be set up without forcing prolife people to fund it.
Look at how much money the Democratic party candidates can raise to lobby for prochoice support.
Just put that money directly into building more medical programs and facilities to provide care directly,
such as through medical schools and internships, and then you can have all the health care you want to provide to the people you want to serve.

Look at the billions lost on a failed prison and mental health system.
So people who believe in funding medical treatment for mentally ill
instead of executions can invest funding in converting prisons into medical treatment centers.

By separating by political beliefs, you can control where your money goes.
There's plenty already being paid in if we didn't waste it on programs that don't work.

Why not give taxpayers a break for investing directly in the programs of their choice:
A. prochoice and right to health care in place of funding the death penalty by converting prisons into medical programs
B. prolife and free market health care such as by organizing resources around banks or VA reform etc.

If people's beliefs clash, then let's just acknowledge that instead of trying to impose one on the other.
Let both sides get their way and fund the programs of their choice that match their beliefs, just like choices of which religious schools or charities to support

Federal money is not being used to pay for abortions.

 

[emilynghiem]

Your failed logical fallacy by means of equivocation are noted and laughed at.

Do you believe in personal responsibility?

Do you think someone who gets pregnant after making the choice to have sex without having taken preventative measures before hand should pay for their own abortion if they get pregnant and decide to go that route?

Or do you believe that others should be forced to pay for the consequences of other's choices?

It's really simple, Faun. You, Jill, and others want to try to make the issue / question much more complicated than it is or has to be. These 3 questions are simple....just give me a straight-up answer on them.

Personal responsibility. That means you're pro-choice. Thank you. I am too. The decision rests with the pregnant woman, her family and her doctor alone.

Dhara then why this business of relying on federal mandates to force regulations on both employers and citizens.
Wouldn't free market choices allow people maximum freedom to set up programs without worrying about
having to go through govt that is Constitutionally required to respect prolife beliefs equally for other such citizens the govt also represents.

Why are we forgetting or ignoring that public laws should respect prolife equally as prochoice?
As well as respecting beliefs in both right to health care and free market health care?

 

[Faun]

The Lamborghini nonsense is absurd as it was said in jest.

So now you declare yourself capable of speaking for the doctor in the video, having the authority to declare the negotiations for a fetus' body parts for the price of a Lamborghini was just 'having a little fun'?!

No, it was my impression she said it in jest as she laughed as she joked about purchasing a $300K vehicle after negotiating a $75 transaction to cover the costs of harvesting embryonic tissue.

And it seems my impression it was said in jest was confirmed as 12 independent investigations agreed with that impression.

You have anything but delusions to defend your position or is your butthurt too great after learning the only illegalities appear to have been done on the part of the film-makers and not Planned Parenthood?

 

[easyt65]

If a woman has un-protected sex and get's pregnant, according to Faun and Jill, I should have to pay for her abortion.

In the same way, Welfare REWARDS women for every child they choose to have out of wedlock by forcing other Americans to pay for the care of those children. This is the insane Liberal mindset that is devoid of the concept of 'personal accountability'.

If a girl has a child out of wedlock...
- where is her family for support?
- Where is the father, and why aren't we forcing him to help support HIS child? (It was his decision to have sex, too)
- where is the church and local charities?
- Why are we paying for more than 1 child born out of wedlock?

I can see one, possibly 2, but no more. If a 3rd child or more is born it should be on the mother to care for the child. If they can't then the children should be taken away. in such a case if the mother continues the irresponsible behavior of having children she can't afford to take care of I would be all in favor of sterilizing the mother FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILDREN / FUTURE children.

Bash ME if you want, but it is women who engage in such activity, having children repeatedly they can't or don't want to take care of, especially those who do so just to get a check, who are the 'bad guys'.

Liberals, however, do not believe in Personal Accountability.
- Obama and Hillary blame others.
--- "It's not MY 'Red Line'...it's the WORLDs Red Line!" (ROFLOL! Good one!)

- Liberals are still reaching back almost a decade to call upon the name 'Bush' to make excuses for or to justify the actions of a President who has been in office over 7 freakin' years! ("Buuuuuusssssshhhhhh!")

Again, pro-abortionists can have all the abortions their little heart desire, but for God's sakes and those of us who are tired of paying for your shite, GROW UP, ACCEPT SOME PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY / RESPONSIBILITY, AND PAY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR OWN ACTIONS!

 

[emilynghiem]

The point is not whether women will seek abortions legal or not. The point is will we allow women to get safe procedures or not?

Worldwide, there are 19 million unsafe abortions a year, and they kill 70,000 women (accounting for 13 percent of maternal deaths), mostly in poor countries like Tanzania where abortion is illegal, according to the World Health Organization. More than two million women a year suffer serious complications. According to Unicef, unsafe abortions cause 4 percent of deaths among pregnant women in Africa, 6 percent in Asia and 12 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/health/02abort.html?_r=0

Dhara this can be set up without forcing prolife people to fund it.
Look at how much money the Democratic party candidates can raise to lobby for prochoice support.
Just put that money directly into building more medical programs and facilities to provide care directly,
such as through medical schools and internships, and then you can have all the health care you want to provide to the people you want to serve.

Look at the billions lost on a failed prison and mental health system.
So people who believe in funding medical treatment for mentally ill
instead of executions can invest funding in converting prisons into medical treatment centers.

By separating by political beliefs, you can control where your money goes.
There's plenty already being paid in if we didn't waste it on programs that don't work.

Why not give taxpayers a break for investing directly in the programs of their choice:
A. prochoice and right to health care in place of funding the death penalty by converting prisons into medical programs
B. prolife and free market health care such as by organizing resources around banks or VA reform etc.

If people's beliefs clash, then let's just acknowledge that instead of trying to impose one on the other.
Let both sides get their way and fund the programs of their choice that match their beliefs, just like choices of which religious schools or charities to support

Federal money is not being used to pay for abortions.

Dhara the point is Planned Parenthood is not a govt institution but one that prolife do not believe in funding.
That's like asking gun control activists to pay taxes to the NRA which they oppose by their beliefs.

 

[mascale]

The various books of the Bible can be understood to be written accounts of history in the making. Moses--an educated, subjugating villain of Imperial Egypt--likely wrote down ancient stories told by desert shepherds. Those got distorted into veracity accounts of a formless and nameless deity. The tribulations of Israel started to be written down, mostly as faith episodes, attributed to the deity of the original legends. Out of Nazareth may have come a different take on the matter--likely with Greek inspiration, from the Pythagoreans.

The Pythagoreans were a religion during the Greek and Roman occupations of the known Western World. A part of the concept was the "apeiron"--from about 6th century, B. C.--which many might regard the origin of even the concept of "Big Bang," as the creation starting in chaos. The Pythagoreans were mathematics oriented, and infinity understanding. In the New Testament version of Luke, 20:34:
_____________________________________________

"Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come, and in the resurrection from the dead, will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

39 Some of the teachers of the law responded, “Well said, teacher!” 40 And no one dared to ask him any more questions.
___________________________________________

Many might scoff that the indicted, of the OP, have a better concept of how religious concepts actually came about, especially of the People of The Book, the Jews and Christians. Thousands of years ago, the concept out of Nazareth can also be said to be so far more cosmopolitan as to defy descriptions of morality and immorality, at its base. And so something like the Luke 20 verses can be recorded.

If all are alive--in the new concept--then abortion is not murder, and fact the need to study the concept of murder would tend to denigrate any concept of punishment for it.

A death penalty would not be construed a part of the Christian Cosmos, a Pythagorean concept. There would be said an inanimate, abstract order to the universe, there to be understood, subject to reasoning.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Spirit of Many Numbers now thought to be in place on Lands of Many Nations, celebrated as "Seven Come Eleven!")

 

[easyt65]

No, it was my impression

So a doctor attempts to negotiate the price of a fetus' chopped up body parts as a sum of untraceable cash and / or a Lamborghini on video, and it is your OPINION that she was just joking around.

Got it...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Look at this chicks face...It covered in hubris with a hint of reality setting in

 

[easyt65]

That's like asking gun control activists to pay taxes to the NRA which they oppose by their beliefs.

Or making it legal for Unions to steal money from their members / make 'dues' mandatory so they can use that money to make political campaign donations to politicians their members do not even support....

 

[Faun]

Your failed logical fallacy by means of equivocation are noted and laughed at.

Do you believe in personal responsibility?

Do you think someone who gets pregnant after making the choice to have sex without having taken preventative measures before hand should pay for their own abortion if they get pregnant and decide to go that route?

Or do you believe that others should be forced to pay for the consequences of other's choices?

It's really simple, Faun. You, Jill, and others want to try to make the issue / question much more complicated than it is or has to be. These 3 questions are simple....just give me a straight-up answer on them.

You have not proven such abortions are paid for with federal tax dollars. You have shown that to be the case in the 1% of cases due to rape and/or incest.

As far as paying for those consequences -- we are going to pay them if women have abortions or not in many cases since having children also costs tax dollars.

If it's cost benefit you're concerned with, then you should be for abortion rights since that is the cheapest method.