Fourth PP video released, it's bad

[flacaltenn]

You can tell how ugly these revelations are ,, by the massive efforts of our leftist budsis just disgustinghere to deflect and hijack the topic. Cant discuss it, can ya?

I'm seeing a massive effort from the right to ignore the deceit involved in the videos - how they were edited and critical parts left out. You might not like Snopes, but it wasn't just Snopes - Factcheck confirmed the same thing.

There is no version of these recordings that would make a discussion of crushing fetuses in strategic and unorthodox ways in order to get a "buyer" an intact fetal heart or kidney. When your mission is to kill something, there is generally a best way to accomplish that. THEN you can fill your orders. Discussing this while youre sipping wine and browsing thru a cranberry chicken salad cannot be made tasteful. No matter HOW you edit it.

I agree that the discussions are callous and hard to listen to, but I think another poster put it into perspective here: Fourth PP video released, it's bad

I had a friend who used to work at NIOSH, and she would listen to some of the scientists casually talking about twisting the heads off of mice to kill them. I suspect when police or medical professionals talk amongst themselves at a bar they exhibit a similar blunt and callous means of talk. It's unpleasant and shocking because it has been removed from the realm of the private and inserted into the realm of the public where we all can judge it.

But is it illegal?

The tapes contain admissions of violations for tissue donation guidelines and ethical questions about deviating from the humane training these doctors received to end beating hearts with fingers and toes. Even for ME, a guy who would never want to end the choice of an abortion, this is just disgusting. And I imagine it would be to many pro aborts as well. If there first reaction wasnt to attack their political opposition.

Why do call them "pro aborts"? Does that mean "pro-lifers" should be renamed "pro-some-lifers"?

Since I am not in this game, im just sloppy I suppose. But from where I sit, the zealots on one side would have abortions AFTER delivery, and the zealots on the other side include those who believe that just masturbating is interfering with reproduction. Or condoms. So I take digs at both. Your pro choice side has been mooved off their original insane positions on choice to actually THINK about partial birth or parental consent or late term abortions. That train DID start out from the station as a pro abort train. ?.. this slow motion train wreck called the abortion debate has changed the shape of both sides in a slow and painful way.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm seeing a massive effort from the right to ignore the deceit involved in the videos - how they were edited and critical parts left out. You might not like Snopes, but it wasn't just Snopes - Factcheck confirmed the same thing.

There is no version of these recordings that would make a discussion of crushing fetuses in strategic and unorthodox ways in order to get a "buyer" an intact fetal heart or kidney. When your mission is to kill something, there is generally a best way to accomplish that. THEN you can fill your orders. Discussing this while youre sipping wine and browsing thru a cranberry chicken salad cannot be made tasteful. No matter HOW you edit it.

I agree that the discussions are callous and hard to listen to, but I think another poster put it into perspective here: Fourth PP video released, it's bad

I had a friend who used to work at NIOSH, and she would listen to some of the scientists casually talking about twisting the heads off of mice to kill them. I suspect when police or medical professionals talk amongst themselves at a bar they exhibit a similar blunt and callous means of talk. It's unpleasant and shocking because it has been removed from the realm of the private and inserted into the realm of the public where we all can judge it.

But is it illegal?

The tapes contain admissions of violations for tissue donation guidelines and ethical questions about deviating from the humane training these doctors received to end beating hearts with fingers and toes. Even for ME, a guy who would never want to end the choice of an abortion, this is just disgusting. And I imagine it would be to many pro aborts as well. If there first reaction wasnt to attack their political opposition.

Why do call them "pro aborts"? Does that mean "pro-lifers" should be renamed "pro-some-lifers"?

Since I am not in this game, im just sloppy I suppose. But from where I sit, the zealots on one side would have abortions AFTER delivery, and the zealots on the other side include those who believe that just masturbating is interfering with reproduction. Or condoms. So I take digs at both. Your pro choice side has been mooved off their original insane positions on choice to actually THINK about partial birth or parental consent or late term abortions. That train DID start out from the station as a pro abort train. ?.. this slow motion train wreck called the abortion debate has changed the shape of both sides in a slow and painful way.

This is nothing more than what happens when a culture steps off onto a slippery slope. Where one license degeneracy, it ENCOURAGES degeneracy... thus it will realize ever greater depths of such, until it becomes untenable, then, should the culture survive, the cultural pendulum will swing the other way.

This is merely the law of nature... .

It works the same for every form of debauchery.

Now take socialism for example. We have an entire generation now that has lived its short adult life; those who were 18 when obama was elected..., who have never known prosperity. THEY "BELIEVE" that this depression is what the US Economy "IS". They've never known a time when sound economic principle was in play, thus they've never known anything remotely akin to upward mobility.

Now, assuming that the US is not destroyed entirely by the end at the end of the reign of economic terror brought by obama's cult, if the economy only manages to average 3% growth in US GDP, they will think they've landed in economic utopia.

If the US Economy were to return to growth rates typical of Reagan and Bush, they'll likely spend most of their days pinching themselves... unable to believe that they're not dreaming.

 

[Derideo_Te]

.

Guidelines issued by HHS do not allow that.

How exactly fetal tissue is used for medicine - CNN.com

When fetal tissue is used in research, it is often sent from the hospital or clinic that performs the abortion to an affiliated research center, Hyun said. Another safeguard in the Health and Human Services guidelines is that a clinical team that performs the abortion cannot know that the fetus will be donated, to help ensure that they do not change how they perform the abortion, or jeopardize the safety of the woman, Hyun said.

These guidelines have been solidified and become more widespread since the 1990s, Hyun said, adding that, "I believe [all clinicians] are well aware of them now."

Well obviously DUH !!! That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. But you now have multiple PP personnel confirming that they VIOLATE these guidelines with impunity. THAT is why I'm even in this thread. Because I'm appalled at the callousness and unprofessionalism of the people punked on video. And would NEVER want my daughter or loved ones anywhere NEAR a PP clinic for more than a urinary tract infection....

Did you not WATCH the segments??? Why are you arguing what SHOULD BE????

What guidelines were violated specifically?

Well for starters, there are the HHS Fed guidelines that Derideo posted at post 305.
Fourth PP video released it s bad Page 31 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Clearly, these doctors KNOW that tissue is OK for harvest and disregard those guidelines and their preferred training to target organs for which they have demand or "buyers". Even PP has admitted that this is wrong. So I cant understand why so many pro aborts are in denial about the wrong doing.

If you read the unedited transcript of the tape - they have not altered the procedure in an illegal way: Fourth PP video released, it's bad

Why do you call them "pro-aborts"?

And if you say that ""some"" patients have given consent ,,,, why isnt that ALL patients have to give consent for donations? I am no fervant anti abortion case, but this is pretty disgusting. Especially because of all the weak excuses and spinning of the facts to excuse this beach of professionalism.

I say "some" because not all patients want to donate the tissue, those that do give consent.

.

Guidelines issued by HHS do not allow that.

How exactly fetal tissue is used for medicine - CNN.com

When fetal tissue is used in research, it is often sent from the hospital or clinic that performs the abortion to an affiliated research center, Hyun said. Another safeguard in the Health and Human Services guidelines is that a clinical team that performs the abortion cannot know that the fetus will be donated, to help ensure that they do not change how they perform the abortion, or jeopardize the safety of the woman, Hyun said.

These guidelines have been solidified and become more widespread since the 1990s, Hyun said, adding that, "I believe [all clinicians] are well aware of them now."

Well obviously DUH !!! That's how it's SUPPOSED to work. But you now have multiple PP personnel confirming that they VIOLATE these guidelines with impunity. THAT is why I'm even in this thread. Because I'm appalled at the callousness and unprofessionalism of the people punked on video. And would NEVER want my daughter or loved ones anywhere NEAR a PP clinic for more than a urinary tract infection....

Did you not WATCH the segments??? Why are you arguing what SHOULD BE????

What guidelines were violated specifically?

Well for starters, there are the HHS Fed guidelines that Derideo posted at post 305.
Fourth PP video released it s bad Page 31 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Clearly, these doctors KNOW that tissue is OK for harvest and disregard those guidelines and their preferred training to target organs for which they have demand or "buyers". Even PP has admitted that this is wrong. So I cant understand why so many pro aborts are in denial about the wrong doing.

If you read the unedited transcript of the tape - they have not altered the procedure in an illegal way: Fourth PP video released, it's bad

Why do you call them "pro-aborts"?

And if you say that ""some"" patients have given consent ,,,, why isnt that ALL patients have to give consent for donations? I am no fervant anti abortion case, but this is pretty disgusting. Especially because of all the weak excuses and spinning of the facts to excuse this beach of professionalism.

I say "some" because not all patients want to donate the tissue, those that do give consent.

Clearly you didnt read the link in post 305 to the HHS guidelines for harvesting fetal tissue. The doctors are NOT supposed to be aware of the consent for tissue donation. This is what keeps them performing the procedures in the humane ways that were taught in school. Yet we have the salad munching wine drinking PP doc gleefully describing how she plans her day day around which cases are consented for donation. And how she veers off the orthodox procedures to preserve whatever tissue has been requested. What part of unethical here dont youunderstand? ? Even PP HAS APOLOGIZED for this revelation. Its not defensable. With any amount of editing or SNOPing...

My apologies, flacaltenn. I didn't realize that she was an actual PP doctor. Yes, you are correct that she is wrong and needs to be exposed for violating the HHS protocols.

I missed that part. Mea culpa.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I'm seeing a massive effort from the right to ignore the deceit involved in the videos - how they were edited and critical parts left out. You might not like Snopes, but it wasn't just Snopes - Factcheck confirmed the same thing.

There is no version of these recordings that would make a discussion of crushing fetuses in strategic and unorthodox ways in order to get a "buyer" an intact fetal heart or kidney. When your mission is to kill something, there is generally a best way to accomplish that. THEN you can fill your orders. Discussing this while youre sipping wine and browsing thru a cranberry chicken salad cannot be made tasteful. No matter HOW you edit it.

I agree that the discussions are callous and hard to listen to, but I think another poster put it into perspective here: Fourth PP video released, it's bad

I had a friend who used to work at NIOSH, and she would listen to some of the scientists casually talking about twisting the heads off of mice to kill them. I suspect when police or medical professionals talk amongst themselves at a bar they exhibit a similar blunt and callous means of talk. It's unpleasant and shocking because it has been removed from the realm of the private and inserted into the realm of the public where we all can judge it.

But is it illegal?

The tapes contain admissions of violations for tissue donation guidelines and ethical questions about deviating from the humane training these doctors received to end beating hearts with fingers and toes. Even for ME, a guy who would never want to end the choice of an abortion, this is just disgusting. And I imagine it would be to many pro aborts as well. If there first reaction wasnt to attack their political opposition.

Why do call them "pro aborts"? Does that mean "pro-lifers" should be renamed "pro-some-lifers"?

Since I am not in this game, im just sloppy I suppose. But from where I sit, the zealots on one side would have abortions AFTER delivery, and the zealots on the other side include those who believe that just masturbating is interfering with reproduction. Or condoms. So I take digs at both. Your pro choice side has been mooved off their original insane positions on choice to actually THINK about partial birth or parental consent or late term abortions. That train DID start out from the station as a pro abort train. ?.. this slow motion train wreck called the abortion debate has changed the shape of both sides in a slow and painful way.

I agree, and if there is some good to have come out of this debacle it is that we are now having this discussion.

There are established HHS protocols and if a PP doctor violated them, for whatever reason, they need to be held accountable. No exceptions.

When it comes to 3rd trimester abortions those are few and far between and usually because the fetus won't survive because of a medical condition or the woman's life is in jeopardy. There are protocols for those too and need to be followed properly.

Yes, abortion is a gruesome business but the alternative is worse. Back street abortions used to kill women and that is why we now have legal abortion that must follow the approved protocols.

If the anti-rights zealots have their way and ban all abortions we will end up with back street abortionists killing women again. That is not an acceptable alternative and no amount of anti-rights zealous laws can stop that from happening.

Let's clean up PP and thank the anti-rights zealots for shedding some light on protocol violations and move on.

 

[JoeB131]

Looking at these videos, most of the incriminating stuff is being said by the actors working for CPM.

 

[EverCurious]

It is a callous job for callous people, however, that does not make it illegal

Well, that is so true.

But the foundation of Roe is that a fetus is a inviable clump of tissue, that such has no kinship with "a PERSON"... And what we're seeing now, because of these NUMEROUS Video Tapes, is that those engaging in such, are doing for the purpose of selling the organs of those innocent little persons.

It's EVIL... and what we know now, is that making it LEGAL, was a HUGE MISTAKE.

But this is what happens where a people license degeneracy... . And its why during 99.99999999~% of human history, it has NOT been legal and why at some point in the none too distant future, 'it' will NOT BE LEGAL!

Interesting. So you're saying that the only reason women get abortions is to sell the baby to medical research? I mean cause it's not like PP /makes/ women come in and get the abortion in the first place. The woman made the choice that she didn't want a child.

I'm afraid you're wrong on history, and it's even in the Roe vs Wade case so I'm guessing you didn't read up on that either; there was /no/ problem with abortion until Christianity took over, therefore the stigma is religious, not scientific:

The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring). Before addressing this claim, we feel it desirable briefly to survey, in several aspects, the history of abortion, for such insight as that history may afford us, and then to examine the state purposes and interests behind the criminal abortion laws.

It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman's life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century. [410 U.S. 113, 130]

1. Ancient attitudes. These are not capable of precise determination. We are told that at the time of the Persian Empire abortifacients were known and that criminal abortions were severely punished. 8 We are also told, however, that abortion was practiced in Greek times as well as in the Roman Era, 9 and that "it was resorted to without scruple." 10 The Ephesian, Soranos, often described as the greatest of the ancient gynecologists, appears to have been generally opposed to Rome's prevailing free-abortion practices. He found it necessary to think first of the life of the mother, and he resorted to abortion when, upon this standard, he felt the procedure advisable. 11 Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn. If abortion was prosecuted in some places, it seems to have been based on a concept of a violation of the father's right to his offspring. Ancient religion did not bar abortion. 12

2. The Hippocratic Oath. What then of the famous Oath that has stood so long as the ethical guide of the medical profession and that bears the name of the great Greek (460(?)-377(?) B. C.), who has been described [410 U.S. 113, 131] as the Father of Medicine, the "wisest and the greatest practitioner of his art," and the "most important and most complete medical personality of antiquity," who dominated the medical schools of his time, and who typified the sum of the medical knowledge of the past? 13 The Oath varies somewhat according to the particular translation, but in any translation the content is clear: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion," 14 or "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy." 15

Although the Oath is not mentioned in any of the principal briefs in this case or in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, it represents the apex of the development of strict ethical concepts in medicine, and its influence endures to this day. Why did not the authority of Hippocrates dissuade abortion practice in his time and that of Rome? The late Dr. Edelstein provides us with a theory: 16 The Oath was not uncontested even in Hippocrates' day; only the Pythagorean school of philosophers frowned upon the related act of suicide. Most Greek thinkers, on the other hand, commended abortion, at least prior to viability. See Plato, Republic, V, 461; Aristotle, Politics, VII, 1335b 25. For the Pythagoreans, however, it was a matter of dogma. For them the embryo was animate from the moment of conception, and abortion meant destruction of a living being. The abortion clause of the Oath, therefore, "echoes Pythagorean doctrines," [410 U.S. 113, 132] and "n no other stratum of Greek opinion were such views held or proposed in the same spirit of uncompromising austerity." 17

Dr. Edelstein then concludes that the Oath originated in a group representing only a small segment of Greek opinion and that it certainly was not accepted by all ancient physicians. He points out that medical writings down to Galen (A. D. 130-200) "give evidence of the violation of almost every one of its injunctions." 18 But with the end of antiquity a decided change took place. Resistance against suicide and against abortion became common. The Oath came to be popular. The emerging teachings of Christianity were in agreement with the Pythagorean ethic. The Oath "became the nucleus of all medical ethics" and "was applauded as the embodiment of truth." Thus, suggests Dr. Edelstein, it is "a Pythagorean manifesto and not the expression of an absolute standard of medical conduct." 19

This, it seems to us, is a satisfactory and acceptable explanation of the Hippocratic Oath's apparent rigidity. It enables us to understand, in historical context, a long-accepted and revered statement of medical ethics.

3. The common law. It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening" - the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 - was not an indictable offense. 21 The absence [410 U.S. 113, 133] of a common-law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became "formed" or recognizably human, or in terms of when a "person" came into being, that is, infused with a "soul" or "animated." A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. 22 This was "mediate animation." Although [410 U.S. 113, 134] Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas' definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common-law scholars and found its way into the received common law in this country.

Whether abortion of a quick fetus was a felony at common law, or even a lesser crime, is still disputed. Bracton, writing early in the 13th century, thought it homicide. 23 But the later and predominant view, following the great common-law scholars, has been that it was, at most, a lesser offense. In a frequently cited [410 U.S. 113, 135] passage, Coke took the position that abortion of a woman "quick with childe" is "a great misprision, and no murder." 24 Blackstone followed, saying that while abortion after quickening had once been considered manslaughter (though not murder), "modern law" took a less severe view. 25 A recent review of the common-law precedents argues, however, that those precedents contradict Coke and that even post-quickening abortion was never established as a common-law crime. 26 This is of some importance because while most American courts ruled, in holding or dictum, that abortion of an unquickened fetus was not criminal under their received common law, 27 others followed Coke in stating that abortion [410 U.S. 113, 136] of a quick fetus was a "misprision," a term they translated to mean "misdemeanor." 28 That their reliance on Coke on this aspect of the law was uncritical and, apparently in all the reported cases, dictum (due probably to the paucity of common-law prosecutions for post-quickening abortion), makes it now appear doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus.

4. The English statutory law. England's first criminal abortion statute, Lord Ellenborough's Act, 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, came in 1803. It made abortion of a quick fetus, 1, a capital crime, but in 2 it provided lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before quickening, and thus preserved the "quickening" distinction. This contrast was continued in the general revision of 1828, 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, 13. It disappeared, however, together with the death penalty, in 1837, 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict., c. 85. 6, and did not reappear in the Offenses Against the Person Act of 1861, 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, 59, that formed the core of English anti-abortion law until the liberalizing reforms of 1967. In 1929, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 34, came into being. Its emphasis was upon the destruction of "the life of a child capable of being born alive." It made a willful act performed with the necessary intent a felony. It contained a proviso that one was not to be [410 U.S. 113, 137] found guilty of the offense "unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother."

A seemingly notable development in the English law was the case of Rex v. Bourne, 1939. 1 K. B. 687. This case apparently answered in the affirmative the question whether an abortion necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman was excepted from the criminal penalties of the 1861 Act. In his instructions to the jury, Judge Macnaghten referred to the 1929 Act, and observed that that Act related to "the case where a child is killed by a wilful act at the time when it is being delivered in the ordinary course of nature." Id., at 691. He concluded that the 1861 Act's use of the word "unlawfully," imported the same meaning expressed by the specific proviso in the 1929 Act, even though there was no mention of preserving the mother's life in the 1861 Act. He then construed the phrase "preserving the life of the mother" broadly, that is, "in a reasonable sense," to include a serious and permanent threat to the mother's health, and instructed the jury to acquit Dr. Bourne if it found he had acted in a good-faith belief that the abortion was necessary for this purpose. Id., at 693-694. The jury did acquit.

Recently, Parliament enacted a new abortion law. This is the Abortion Act of 1967, 15 & 16 Eliz. 2, c. 87. The Act permits a licensed physician to perform an abortion where two other licensed physicians agree (a) "that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated," or (b) "that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as [410 U.S. 113, 138] to be seriously handicapped." The Act also provides that, in making this determination, "account may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment." It also permits a physician, without the concurrence of others, to terminate a pregnancy where he is of the good-faith opinion that the abortion "is immediately necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman."

5. The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law. Connecticut, the first State to enact abortion legislation, adopted in 1821 that part of Lord Ellenborough's Act that related to a woman "quick with child." 29 The death penalty was not imposed. Abortion before quickening was made a crime in that State only in 1860. 30 In 1828, New York enacted legislation 31 that, in two respects, was to serve as a model for early anti-abortion statutes. First, while barring destruction of an unquickened fetus as well as a quick fetus, it made the former only a misdemeanor, but the latter second-degree manslaughter. Second, it incorporated a concept of therapeutic abortion by providing that an abortion was excused if it "shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purpose." By 1840, when Texas had received the common law, 32 only eight American States [410 U.S. 113, 139] had statutes dealing with abortion. 33 It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law. Most of these initial statutes dealt severely with abortion after quickening but were lenient with it before quickening. Most punished attempts equally with completed abortions. While many statutes included the exception for an abortion thought by one or more physicians to be necessary to save the mother's life, that provision soon disappeared and the typical law required that the procedure actually be necessary for that purpose.

Gradually, in the middle and late 19th century the quickening distinction disappeared from the statutory law of most States and the degree of the offense and the penalties were increased. By the end of the 1950's, a large majority of the jurisdictions banned abortion, however and whenever performed, unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother. 34 The exceptions, Alabama and the District of Columbia, permitted abortion to preserve the mother's health. 35 Three States permitted abortions that were not "unlawfully" performed or that were not "without lawful justification," leaving interpretation of those standards to the courts. 36 In [410 U.S. 113, 140] the past several years, however, a trend toward liberalization of abortion statutes has resulted in adoption, by about one-third of the States, of less stringent laws, most of them patterned after the ALI Model Penal Code, 230.3, 37 set forth as Appendix B to the opinion in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 205.

It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity>[410 U.S. 113, 141] to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.

6. The position of the American Medical Association. The anti-abortion mood prevalent in this country in the late 19th century was shared by the medical profession. Indeed, the attitude of the profession may have played a significant role in the enactment of stringent criminal abortion legislation during that period.

An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 73-78 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion "with a view to its general suppression." It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of "this general demoralization":

"The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime - a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.

"The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life . . . .

"The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, [410 U.S. 113, 142] and to its life as yet denies all protection." Id., at 75-76.

The Committee then offered, and the Association adopted, resolutions protesting "against such unwarrantable destruction of human life," calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws, and requesting the cooperation of state medical societies "in pressing the subject." Id., at 28, 78.

In 1871 a long and vivid report was submitted by the Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the observation, "We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less." 22 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 258 (1871). It proffered resolutions, adopted by the Association, id., at 38-39, recommending, among other things, that it "be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor, without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child - if that be possible," and calling "the attention of the clergy of all denominations to the perverted views of morality entertained by a large class of females - aye, and men also, on this important question."

Except for periodic condemnation of the criminal abortionist, no further formal AMA action took place until 1967. In that year, the Committee on Human Reproduction urged the adoption of a stated policy of opposition to induced abortion, except when there is "documented medical evidence" of a threat to the health or life of the mother, or that the child "may be born with incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency," or that a pregnancy "resulting from legally established statutory or forcible rape or incest may constitute a threat to the mental or physical health of the [410 U.S. 113, 143] patient," two other physicians "chosen because of their recognized professional competence have examined the patient and have concurred in writing," and the procedure "is performed in a hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals." The providing of medical information by physicians to state legislatures in their consideration of legislation regarding therapeutic abortion was "to be considered consistent with the principles of ethics of the American Medical Association." This recommendation was adopted by the House of Delegates. Proceedings of the AMA House of Delegates 40-51 (June 1967).

In 1970, after the introduction of a variety of proposed resolutions, and of a report from its Board of Trustees, a reference committee noted "polarization of the medical profession on this controversial issue"; division among those who had testified; a difference of opinion among AMA councils and committees; "the remarkable shift in testimony" in six months, felt to be influenced "by the rapid changes in state laws and by the judicial decisions which tend to make abortion more freely available;" and a feeling "that this trend will continue." On June 25, 1970, the House of Delegates adopted preambles and most of the resolutions proposed by the reference committee. The preambles emphasized "the best interests of the patient," "sound clinical judgment," and "informed patient consent," in contrast to "mere acquiescence to the patient's demand." The resolutions asserted that abortion is a medical procedure that should be performed by a licensed physician in an accredited hospital only after consultation with two other physicians and in conformity with state law, and that no party to the procedure should be required to violate personally held moral principles. 38 Proceedings [410 U.S. 113, 144] of the AMA House of Delegates 220 (June 1970). The AMA Judicial Council rendered a complementary opinion. 39

7. The position of the American Public Health Association. In October 1970, the Executive Board of the APHA adopted Standards for Abortion Services. These were five in number:

"a. Rapid and simple abortion referral must be readily available through state and local public [410 U.S. 113, 145] health departments, medical societies, or other nonprofit organizations.

"b. An important function of counselling should be to simplify and expedite the provision of abortion services; it should not delay the obtaining of these services.

"c. Psychiatric consultation should not be mandatory. As in the case of other specialized medical services, psychiatric consultation should be sought for definite indications and not on a routine basis.

"d. A wide range of individuals from appropriately trained, sympathetic volunteers to highly skilled physicians may qualify as abortion counselors.

"e. Contraception and/or sterilization should be discussed with each abortion patient." Recommended Standards for Abortion Services, 61 Am. J. Pub. Health 396 (1971).

Among factors pertinent to life and health risks associated with abortion were three that "are recognized as important":

"a. the skill of the physician,

"b. the environment in which the abortion is performed, and above all

"c. the duration of pregnancy, as determined by uterine size and confirmed by menstrual history." Id., at 397.

It was said that "a well-equipped hospital" offers more protection "to cope with unforeseen difficulties than an office or clinic without such resources. . . . The factor of gestational age is of overriding importance." Thus, it was recommended that abortions in the second trimester and early abortions in the presence of existing medical complications be performed in hospitals as inpatient procedures. For pregnancies in the first trimester, [410 U.S. 113, 146] abortion in the hospital with or without overnight stay "is probably the safest practice." An abortion in an extramural facility, however, is an acceptable alternative "provided arrangements exist in advance to admit patients promptly if unforeseen complications develop." Standards for an abortion facility were listed. It was said that at present abortions should be performed by physicians or osteopaths who are licensed to practice and who have "adequate training." Id., at 398.

8. The position of the American Bar Association. At its meeting in February 1972 the ABA House of Delegates approved, with 17 opposing votes, the Uniform Abortion Act that had been drafted and approved the preceding August by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. 58 A. B. A. J. 380 (1972). We set forth the Act in full in the margin. 40 The [410 U.S. 113, 147] Conference has appended an enlightening Prefatory Note.

Three reasons have been advanced to explain historically the enactment of criminal abortion laws in the 19th century and to justify their continued existence. [410 U.S. 113, 148]

It has been argued occasionally that these laws were the product of a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct. Texas, however, does not advance this justification in the present case, and it appears that no court or commentator has taken the argument seriously. 42 The appellants and amici contend, moreover, that this is not a proper state purpose at all and suggest that, if it were, the Texas statutes are overbroad in protecting it since the law fails to distinguish between married and unwed mothers.

A second reason is concerned with abortion as a medical procedure. When most criminal abortion laws were first enacted, the procedure was a hazardous one for the woman. 43 This was particularly true prior to the [410 U.S. 113, 149] development of antisepsis. Antiseptic techniques, of course, were based on discoveries by Lister, Pasteur, and others first announced in 1867, but were not generally accepted and employed until about the turn of the century. Abortion mortality was high. Even after 1900, and perhaps until as late as the development of antibiotics in the 1940's, standard modern techniques such as dilation and curettage were not nearly so safe as they are today. Thus, it has been argued that a State's real concern in enacting a criminal abortion law was to protect the pregnant woman, that is, to restrain her from submitting to a procedure that placed her life in serious jeopardy.

Modern medical techniques have altered this situation. Appellants and various amici refer to medical data indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe. Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth. 44 Consequently, any interest of the State in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would be equally dangerous for her to forgo it, has largely disappeared. Of course, important state interests in the areas of health and medical standards do remain. [410 U.S. 113, 150] The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise. The prevalence of high mortality rates at illegal "abortion mills" strengthens, rather than weakens, the State's interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed. Moreover, the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues. Thus, the State retains a definite interest in protecting the woman's own health and safety when an abortion is proposed at a late stage of pregnancy.

The third reason is the State's interest - some phrase it in terms of duty - in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. 45 The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone. [410 U.S. 113, 151]

Parties challenging state abortion laws have sharply disputed in some courts the contention that a purpose of these laws, when enacted, was to protect prenatal life. 46 Pointing to the absence of legislative history to support the contention, they claim that most state laws were designed solely to protect the woman. Because medical advances have lessened this concern, at least with respect to abortion in early pregnancy, they argue that with respect to such abortions the laws can no longer be justified by any state interest. There is some scholarly support for this view of original purpose. 47 The few state courts called upon to interpret their laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did focus on the State's interest in protecting the woman's health rather than in preserving the embryo and fetus. 48 Proponents of this view point out that in many States, including Texas, 49 by statute or judicial interpretation, the pregnant woman herself could not be prosecuted for self-abortion or for cooperating in an abortion performed upon her by another. 50 They claim that adoption of the "quickening" distinction through received common [410 U.S. 113, 152] law and state statutes tacitly recognizes the greater health hazards inherent in late abortion and impliedly repudiates the theory that life begins at conception.

It is with these interests, and the weight to be attached to them, that this case is concerned.

~ You're further mistaken on Roe vs Wade being about a "clump of cells" vs not. The decision was that it was a woman's right to abortion until the "potential life" of the child became a compelling interest to the state.

The bottom line as per the court:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [410 U.S. 113, 154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

We note that those federal and state courts that have recently considered abortion law challenges have reached the same conclusion. A majority, in addition to the District Court in the present case, have held state laws unconstitutional, at least in part, because of vagueness or because of overbreadth and abridgment of rights. Abele v. Markle, 342 F. Supp. 800 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-56; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730; Doe v. Bolton, 319 F. Supp. 1048 (ND Ga. 1970), appeal decided today, post, p. 179; Doe v. Scott, 321 F. Supp. 1385 (ND Ill. 1971), appeal docketed, No. 70-105; Poe v. Menghini, 339 F. Supp. 986 (Kan. 1972); YWCA v. Kugler, 342 F. Supp. 1048 (NJ 1972); Babbitz v. McCann, [410 U.S. 113, 155] 310 F. Supp. 293 (ED Wis. 1970), appeal dismissed, 400 U.S. 1 (1970); People v. Belous, 71 Cal. 2d 954, 458 P.2d 194 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 915 (1970); State v. Barquet, 262 So.2d 431 (Fla. 1972).

Others have sustained state statutes. Crossen v. Attorney General, 344 F. Supp. 587 (ED Ky. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-256; Rosen v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 318 F. Supp. 1217 (ED La. 1970), appeal docketed, No. 70-42; Corkey v. Edwards, 322 F. Supp. 1248 (WDNC 1971), appeal docketed, No. 71-92; Steinberg v. Brown, 321 F. Supp. 741 (ND Ohio 1970); Doe v. Rampton (Utah 1971), appeal docketed, No. 71-5666; Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind. ___, 285 N. E. 2d 265 (1972); Spears v. State, 257 So.2d 876 (Miss. 1972); State v. Munson, 86 S. D. 663, 201 N. W. 2d 123 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-631.

Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.

~ AKA the majority of states already recognized that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion. The only sticky point was /until when/. The courts opinion on that as well as some history and /other/ religious views:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160]

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. 60 The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [410 U.S. 113, 161] the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. 62

In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. 63 That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few [410 U.S. 113, 162] courts have squarely so held. 64 In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.


~ The determination of life's beginning as far as the constitution is concerned is "viability" - an unborn child has /no/ constitutional rights and thus no constitutional basis for legal protection.

Abortion is /not/ going to be made illegal, at most they /might/ alter the time at which they consider a life as "viable" - though personally I highly doubt they will do so because as it stands now it is state determined point past the 1st trimester and because an abortion is safer for the woman than child birth up to that point.

So if you have an issue with the "time" in your state, feel free to bitch at them and get it changed. The court's made it's constitutional opinion pretty clear, and that will very likely be the framework states will continue to have to follow.



I find it interesting that pro-lifers are so uneducated about human development. (Which is why I write much of the argument off to religious dogma.) You're freaking out about organ harvesting, as if that's what determines life. I completely disagree, the brain is what matters, without a brain you cannot run those organs, you cannot think for yourself, you cannot "live," so that is /my/ basis for when life begins...

The heart is fully formed at around 22 days, the embryo is 1.5-3mm in length and barely has a spine (it's still open because there's no brain formed yet.) Here's a picture: https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/images/1/1f/Stage10_bf6.jpg

Liver, lungs, spleen, pancreatic and gall bladder start to form at around 28 days, here's a picture: Human embryo at 28 days old - Stock Image P680 0904 - Science Photo Library

The brain starts to form up at 6 weeks (42 days), at 8 weeks (56 days), the part of the brain that deals with breathing and regulating a heart beat, (the muscles responsible for it) starts of form up. Here's a picture http://img3.sizeis.com/photos/human-embryo-6-weeks.jpg

Figure week 12 (84 days) before the brain, or the embryo as a whole, could be considered anywhere near "functional". Which was pretty much the courts opinion of when the state has any argument of interest in potential life in Roe vs Wade; around the end of the first trimester; week 13 (91 days).

I'll even give that around 10weeks they start to look like a miniature palm sized baby, you can tell the sex, etc. So I could see the concern for emotional types. The rub though is that while we've managed to keep 21 week old fetus's alive, that is the absolute /youngest/ that modern medical science can even keep alive outside the womb. It's also of concern that a study of 241 on children born between 22 and 25 weeks who were currently at school age found that 46 percent had severe or moderate disabilities such as cerebral palsy, vision or hearing loss and learning problems. 34 percent were mildly disabled and 20 percent had no disabilities, while 12 percent had disabling cerebral palsy.

The fetus needs to be in the womb until it's done cooking and quite simply before that, before 21 weeks, it is unquestionably, undeniably, non-viable, no matter how much it might look like a baby.

So the best, absolute best, you're going to get for an abortion cut off is 21 weeks, and I suspect it's going to be more like a best case of 23 weeks because of the disabilities caused by stunted/failed development/formation. The partial-birth abortion by fed law cut off is 24 weeks, /most/ clinics choose, on their own, not to do them after 8-12 weeks.

All these videos are doing is riling up people over nothing, drumming up news, and you people are falling for it hook, line, and sinker. You have got to stop letting the media lead you around like dogs on a leash...

 

[JoeB131]

"It's a boy!"

Then they giggle about it? That's disturbing. Evil and without souls

Or not. Obviously, the woman who had the procedure didn't care one way or the other.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"It's a boy!"

Then they giggle about it? That's disturbing. Evil and without souls

Or not. Obviously, the woman who had the procedure didn't care one way or the other.

GFY....and stop following me around like a puppy. See how that works, old man? I doubt it you will grasp it

 

[JoeB131]

"It's a boy!"

Then they giggle about it? That's disturbing. Evil and without souls

Or not. Obviously, the woman who had the procedure didn't care one way or the other.

GFY....and stop following me around like a puppy. See how that works, old man? I doubt it you will grasp it

Well, some day, Fat Irish Sow, you will be able to compete in the big leagues.

Some day.

today isn't that day.

Tomorrow isn't looking hopeful.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"It's a boy!"

Then they giggle about it? That's disturbing. Evil and without souls

Or not. Obviously, the woman who had the procedure didn't care one way or the other.

GFY....and stop following me around like a puppy. See how that works, old man? I doubt it you will grasp it

Well, some day, Fat Irish Sow, you will be able to compete in the big leagues.

Some day.

today isn't that day.

LOL,Old man you are strictly minor league. That and call people childish middle school names. Hell, our ten year old twins have better insults than you.

Now.....GFY

 

[JoeB131]

LOL,Old man you are strictly minor league. That and call people childish middle school names. Hell, our ten year old twins have better insults than you.

Now.....GFY

Yet you are the one who gets all upset when i point out your logical fallacies.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

LOL,Old man you are strictly minor league. That and call people childish middle school names. Hell, our ten year old twins have better insults than you.

Now.....GFY

Yet you are the one who gets all upset when i point out your logical fallacies.

I'm not upset...I don't take you serious so it would be impossible for you to upset me. You have failed again. Just like you failed at being in the military..and well pretty much at life. Poor, poor soul...such a loser in life

 

[JoeB131]

'm not upset...I don't take you serious so it would be impossible for you to upset me. You have failed again. Just like you failed at being in the military..and well pretty much at life. Poor, poor soul...such a loser in life

Ys, you've been spending the whole morning not being upset by me.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

'm not upset...I don't take you serious so it would be impossible for you to upset me. You have failed again. Just like you failed at being in the military..and well pretty much at life. Poor, poor soul...such a loser in life

Ys, you've been spending the whole morning not being upset by me.

You're a minor distraction, that's it. Now once again GFY, failure.

 

[JoeB131]

You've been whining about me for two pages now. If I didn't have an appointment to meet with a client in half an hour, I'd probably keep you going all day.

 

[Bonzi]

PP needs to be audited, and, then have tax-exempt status taken away.... (based on what they find, of course).
Not sure if there is any consternation surrounding an audit, but, if they are innocent should not be a problem.
At a MINIMUM, this should be done.

 

[JoeB131]

PP needs to be audited, and, then have tax-exempt status taken away.... (based on what they find, of course).
Not sure if there is any consternation surrounding an audit, but, if they are innocent should not be a problem.
At a MINIMUM, this should be done.

Why?

First, what if they do an audit and find no irregularities? Are you still going to be for removing their tax exempt status.

If PP announced tomorrow they will no longer donate fetal tissue (which would actually be a bad thing, given how critical it is to medical research), will you stop having a problem with them.

You are upset that they PERFORM abortions. Not what they do with the medical waste or how they talk about it.

Do you ever ask yourself why?

 

[Bonzi]

PP needs to be audited, and, then have tax-exempt status taken away.... (based on what they find, of course).
Not sure if there is any consternation surrounding an audit, but, if they are innocent should not be a problem.
At a MINIMUM, this should be done.

Why?

First, what if they do an audit and find no irregularities? Are you still going to be for removing their tax exempt status.

If PP announced tomorrow they will no longer donate fetal tissue (which would actually be a bad thing, given how critical it is to medical research), will you stop having a problem with them.

You are upset that they PERFORM abortions. Not what they do with the medical waste or how they talk about it.

Do you ever ask yourself why?

I just think if they are making money and they don't really qualify for non-profit, they should not get the benefits of it. I believe the same should be true of Churches.

 

[Katzndogz]

They should be defunded and all those selling body parts be put in prison.

 

[JoeB131]

I just think if they are making money and they don't really qualify for non-profit, they should not get the benefits of it. I believe the same should be true of Churches.

Then go to Congress and ask for comprehensive tax reform.

That's not what the issue here is.