Anti-abortion activists indicted for undercover videos smearing Planned Parenthood

[C_Clayton_Jones]

RE: That's my view of women who get pregnant and then expect me to pay for raising their bastards.

Dear bripat9643
What's your view of MEN who get women pregnant
and then expect you to pay for welfare for the children?

Doesn't it take both the MAN and the woman to do this?

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

 

[bripat9643]

RE: That's my view of women who get pregnant and then expect me to pay for raising their bastards.

Dear bripat9643
What's your view of MEN who get women pregnant
and then expect you to pay for welfare for the children?

Doesn't it take both the MAN and the woman to do this?

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

 

[Faun]

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Patently false. If the woman opts to raise the child, she has all of the responsibility for the 24 hour care and maintenance for an infant from the moment it is born, until the child is an adult. The man simply has to contribute money for the child's upkeep. Unless he chooses to be in the child's life in a more meaningful way. If a man doesn't wish to put himself in this position he could either (a) keep it in his pants; or (b) carry a condom at all times, and hope it doesn't break.

The woman can keep her legs closed, plus she can use birth control, plus she can get an abortion if she wants. So why does the man become responsible because she failed to use any of the means available to her?

"The man has to contribute money for the child's upkeep?" Yeah, that's so trivial! Meanwhile the woman sits home and sucks off the taxpayers.

Sorry, but I just don't feel the guilt.

True, a woman cab choose to keep her legs closed. Like abortion, it's her choice.

 

[Stephanie]

Chicago’s CBS 2 TV reported that ectopic pregnancies, where the fetus develops outside the uterus, affect 64,000 women a year, a figure that comes from the American Pregnancy Association. The National Institutes of Health says that ectopic pregnancies are “life-threatening” and that the pregnancy “cannot continue to birth.” The fetus also cannot survive.
The Life of the Mother

Fetal fanatics don't care if women die. It's only the fetus life they care about.

They are not "Pro-Life"....They are "Pro-Pregnancy", once the baby is born they don't give a shit.

They certainly don't care about the life of the pregnant woman. Even if the woman's life is in danger, they don't care. They value the fetus more.

Like you do sitting on a message board. cry us a river. they are old enough to get knocked up they are old enough to take care of themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Patently false. If the woman opts to raise the child, she has all of the responsibility for the 24 hour care and maintenance for an infant from the moment it is born, until the child is an adult. The man simply has to contribute money for the child's upkeep. Unless he chooses to be in the child's life in a more meaningful way. If a man doesn't wish to put himself in this position he could either (a) keep it in his pants; or (b) carry a condom at all times, and hope it doesn't break.

The woman can keep her legs closed, plus she can use birth control, plus she can get an abortion if she wants. So why does the man become responsible because she failed to use any of the means available to her?

"The man has to contribute money for the child's upkeep?" Yeah, that's so trivial! Meanwhile the woman sits home and sucks off the taxpayers.

Sorry, but I just don't feel the guilt.

True, a woman cab choose to keep her legs closed. Like abortion, it's her choice.

Then why should the man be forced to pay for it?

 

[Faun]

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Patently false. If the woman opts to raise the child, she has all of the responsibility for the 24 hour care and maintenance for an infant from the moment it is born, until the child is an adult. The man simply has to contribute money for the child's upkeep. Unless he chooses to be in the child's life in a more meaningful way. If a man doesn't wish to put himself in this position he could either (a) keep it in his pants; or (b) carry a condom at all times, and hope it doesn't break.

The woman can keep her legs closed, plus she can use birth control, plus she can get an abortion if she wants. So why does the man become responsible because she failed to use any of the means available to her?

"The man has to contribute money for the child's upkeep?" Yeah, that's so trivial! Meanwhile the woman sits home and sucks off the taxpayers.

Sorry, but I just don't feel the guilt.

True, a woman cab choose to keep her legs closed. Like abortion, it's her choice.

Then why should the man be forced to pay for it?

Because it's his child. Just like the woman had the choice to keep her legs shut, the man had the choice to keep is pants on.

 

[bripat9643]

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Patently false. If the woman opts to raise the child, she has all of the responsibility for the 24 hour care and maintenance for an infant from the moment it is born, until the child is an adult. The man simply has to contribute money for the child's upkeep. Unless he chooses to be in the child's life in a more meaningful way. If a man doesn't wish to put himself in this position he could either (a) keep it in his pants; or (b) carry a condom at all times, and hope it doesn't break.

The woman can keep her legs closed, plus she can use birth control, plus she can get an abortion if she wants. So why does the man become responsible because she failed to use any of the means available to her?

"The man has to contribute money for the child's upkeep?" Yeah, that's so trivial! Meanwhile the woman sits home and sucks off the taxpayers.

Sorry, but I just don't feel the guilt.

True, a woman cab choose to keep her legs closed. Like abortion, it's her choice.

Then why should the man be forced to pay for it?

Because it's his child. Just like the woman had the choice to keep her legs shut, the man had the choice to keep is pants on.

He had no choice about whether to keep the child. If the woman didn't want to have a child, she has every conceivable means to avoid it. The decision to have it is entirely hers.

 

[jillian]

RE: That's my view of women who get pregnant and then expect me to pay for raising their bastards.

Dear bripat9643
What's your view of MEN who get women pregnant
and then expect you to pay for welfare for the children?

Doesn't it take both the MAN and the woman to do this?

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

 

[bripat9643]

RE: That's my view of women who get pregnant and then expect me to pay for raising their bastards.

Dear bripat9643
What's your view of MEN who get women pregnant
and then expect you to pay for welfare for the children?

Doesn't it take both the MAN and the woman to do this?

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

We're not talking about what she wants to do with her body. We're talking about whether men are financially responsible for the decisions that women make. Simply to utter it makes it obvious how idiotic such a notion is.

 

[jillian]

Dear bripat9643
What's your view of MEN who get women pregnant
and then expect you to pay for welfare for the children?

Doesn't it take both the MAN and the woman to do this?

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

We're not talking about what she wants to do with her body. We're talking about whether men are financially responsible for the decisions that women make. Simply to utter it makes it obvious how idiotic such a notion is.

that isn't the only issue.

men are charged with child support if a woman has a child because it is for the BENEFIT OF THE CHILD, not the woman.

men don't get to decide because it isn't your body. and if they did, they'd always say they told the woman to abort so they wouldn't have to pay.

that's life.

 

[bripat9643]

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

We're not talking about what she wants to do with her body. We're talking about whether men are financially responsible for the decisions that women make. Simply to utter it makes it obvious how idiotic such a notion is.

that isn't the only issue.

men are charged with child support if a woman has a child because it is for the BENEFIT OF THE CHILD, not the woman.

men don't get to decide because it isn't your body. and if they did, they'd always say they told the woman to abort so they wouldn't have to pay.

that's life.

But laws are supposed to protect your rights. You're just admitting that you don't give a flying fuck about the rights of men,

 

[bravoactual]

Texas antiabortion activists used fraud, judge in S.F. rules.

A federal judge in San Francisco dealt another body blow to antiabortion activists who had infiltrated meetings abortion providers, saying individuals like David Daleiden used fraud gain access to those meeting and the engaged in illegal activity and are now prohibited from making public recording or information he and others obtained.

Daleiden is currently facing criminal charges in the state of Texas on similar charges.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Texas antiabortion activists used fraud, judge in S.F. rules.

A federal judge in San Francisco dealt another body blow to antiabortion activists who had infiltrated meetings abortion providers, saying individuals like David Daleiden used fraud gain access to those meeting and the engaged in illegal activity and are now prohibited from making public recording or information he and others obtained.

Daleiden is currently facing criminal charges in the state of Texas on similar charges.

But, when someone did the same thing to infiltrate a oil rig location, or a hog farm, that's ok.

When someone serepticiously recorded Mitt Romney's 47% speech, that was ok, too.

 

[Faun]

Patently false. If the woman opts to raise the child, she has all of the responsibility for the 24 hour care and maintenance for an infant from the moment it is born, until the child is an adult. The man simply has to contribute money for the child's upkeep. Unless he chooses to be in the child's life in a more meaningful way. If a man doesn't wish to put himself in this position he could either (a) keep it in his pants; or (b) carry a condom at all times, and hope it doesn't break.

The woman can keep her legs closed, plus she can use birth control, plus she can get an abortion if she wants. So why does the man become responsible because she failed to use any of the means available to her?

"The man has to contribute money for the child's upkeep?" Yeah, that's so trivial! Meanwhile the woman sits home and sucks off the taxpayers.

Sorry, but I just don't feel the guilt.

True, a woman cab choose to keep her legs closed. Like abortion, it's her choice.

Then why should the man be forced to pay for it?

Because it's his child. Just like the woman had the choice to keep her legs shut, the man had the choice to keep is pants on.

He had no choice about whether to keep the child. If the woman didn't want to have a child, she has every conceivable means to avoid it. The decision to have it is entirely hers.

Stop being a whiney bitch because women, who are the ones who get pregnant, have more choices than men. When men can get pregnant, then they too will have that choice.

Until then, women still have the right to terminate their pregnancy and men still have the responsibility to support their own children.

 

[Faun]

Dear bripat9643
What's your view of MEN who get women pregnant
and then expect you to pay for welfare for the children?

Doesn't it take both the MAN and the woman to do this?

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

We're not talking about what she wants to do with her body. We're talking about whether men are financially responsible for the decisions that women make. Simply to utter it makes it obvious how idiotic such a notion is.

In the vast majority of cases, the man made the decision to get the woman pregnant. WTF is wrong with you??

 

[Faun]

Texas antiabortion activists used fraud, judge in S.F. rules.

A federal judge in San Francisco dealt another body blow to antiabortion activists who had infiltrated meetings abortion providers, saying individuals like David Daleiden used fraud gain access to those meeting and the engaged in illegal activity and are now prohibited from making public recording or information he and others obtained.

Daleiden is currently facing criminal charges in the state of Texas on similar charges.

But, when someone did the same thing to infiltrate a oil rig location, or a hog farm, that's ok.

When someone serepticiously recorded Mitt Romney's 47% speech, that was ok, too.

What fraud was committed when Romney spoke to the public?

 

[Faun]

Wrong again, as usual.

“If this case concerned a State's ability to require the mother to notify the father before taking some action with respect to a living child raised by both, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude as a general matter that the father's interest in the welfare of the child and the mother's interest are equal.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.”

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Not wrong, as usual.

I couldn't give a crap what the SC says on the matter. It lost all credibility when it ruled that fining a man for not buying insurance was a tax.

If a man has no say in the matter, he has no responsibility. A woman has three separate means for avoiding the delivery of a child. If she fails to avail herself of all three, how is the man financially for raising the child? It was 99% her decision.

and men have no responsibility for getting a woman pregnant?

again, it is not an issue of what you agree or disagree with. it is whether government has the right to legislate what a woman can do with HER body and WHEN the governmental interest kicks in.

an extremist, ranting gubmint hater like you should really get out of women's business and stop wanting that gubmint that you hate to legislate a matter that is only the business of a woman and her doctor...and whoever else SHE wishes to include in her decision-making process.

dismissed.

We're not talking about what she wants to do with her body. We're talking about whether men are financially responsible for the decisions that women make. Simply to utter it makes it obvious how idiotic such a notion is.

that isn't the only issue.

men are charged with child support if a woman has a child because it is for the BENEFIT OF THE CHILD, not the woman.

men don't get to decide because it isn't your body. and if they did, they'd always say they told the woman to abort so they wouldn't have to pay.

that's life.

But laws are supposed to protect your rights. You're just admitting that you don't give a flying fuck about the rights of men,

What right(s) do you delude yourself into believing are being violated??

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Texas antiabortion activists used fraud, judge in S.F. rules.

A federal judge in San Francisco dealt another body blow to antiabortion activists who had infiltrated meetings abortion providers, saying individuals like David Daleiden used fraud gain access to those meeting and the engaged in illegal activity and are now prohibited from making public recording or information he and others obtained.

Daleiden is currently facing criminal charges in the state of Texas on similar charges.

But, when someone did the same thing to infiltrate a oil rig location, or a hog farm, that's ok.

When someone serepticiously recorded Mitt Romney's 47% speech, that was ok, too.

What fraud was committed when Romney spoke to the public?

An illegal recording was made and distributed, along with the person making the recording was there under false pretenses.

 

[bravoactual]

Texas antiabortion activists used fraud, judge in S.F. rules.

A federal judge in San Francisco dealt another body blow to antiabortion activists who had infiltrated meetings abortion providers, saying individuals like David Daleiden used fraud gain access to those meeting and the engaged in illegal activity and are now prohibited from making public recording or information he and others obtained.

Daleiden is currently facing criminal charges in the state of Texas on similar charges.

But, when someone did the same thing to infiltrate a oil rig location, or a hog farm, that's ok.

When someone serepticiously recorded Mitt Romney's 47% speech, that was ok, too.

The video of Romney was NOT edited for content. An edited tape presupposes the existence the original tape and is therefore inadmissible in a court of law.

What Romney said was verbatim, not edited, altered or dubbed.

Daleiden did with intent perpetrate to fraud, present false and/or misleading information regarding attempts by Planned Parenthood to sale fetal tissue. Such information was presented as legal fact. It was not.

The tape of Romney, while taken surreptitiously (correct spelling), did present a fair and accurate portrayal events and language used by Romney at the fund raiser.

Daleiden's video did not.

The Romney video was NOT edited for content.

The Daleiden video WAS EDITED FOR CONTENT

Thank you for playing grasping at straws.