Planned Parenthood caught trafficking in human body parts

[Coyote]

Strawman. That isn't what he said. Who benefited from the war in Iraq?

It is interesting that you felt the need to point that out when his asinine question was a straw man itself - she never stated that the Iraq war benefited everyone but that the MILITARY benefited everyone. That is simply a fact that is painfully obvious.

Of course, that in itself is an asinine line of questioning anyway because it was assuming that the right is somehow the vaunted pro military action party when that has ceased to be the case. In general, both parties are now active war mongers and this president has presided in an expansion of overseas military action all over the place. Fewer troops on the ground (though we are going BACK to Iraq), a lot more missiles blowing shit up.

I don't really see the real advantage here.

She said :
Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.

He brought up a specific conflict and asked how did anyone benefit in that?

That isn't a strawman.

Yes it is. Sorry that you do not want to deal with that basic fact but the Iraq war - weather or not it benefited anything at all - is immaterial to the fact that the military benefits all.

Or I guess we could simply argue PP's merits based entirely on abortion and ignore the other services it offers. That is exactly what you just did with the military. Bring up a single engagement and ignore the entirety of the military's history to argue that it does not benefit all.

That still doesn't make it a strawman. Yes - I agree, that in general the military does benefit us all. Looking at specific conflicts however, it is less clear.

When she responded with: You telling me you don't benefit from the military? No - he never said that, he brought up a specific conflict where it is doubtful there was much if any benefit. Which is what a strawman argument is

She never stated everyone benefited from the Iraq war.

Se how they are identical in the manner in which they attack an argument never made.

She said everyone benefited from the military - that all inclusive statement includes the Iraq War - right?

 

[FA_Q2]

You're the one who got the stat wrong.

I consider anything you post to "not be worth my time" unless I am humilating you.

Try to educate yourself, stupid.

The Truth Behind Late-Term Abortions Everyday Feminism

It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon

Are you trying to be an @ss?

Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics? Why shouldn't a man read about female issues? If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand? A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?

Chiffon???? you should change you screen name to silly after that comment. Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen. You have a brain, use it to think before posting.

People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control. I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them. As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.

The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole. Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure. It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body. It is a residual electrical response. Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.

The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.

No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion. When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.

You want to save unwanted children? Go adopt a few and care for them. No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth. Adoption is not an easy choice either.

Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also. It's her choice and no one elses. I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.

Really? It is her choice and no one else? Are you POSITIVE about that?

Yes.

Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.

I have addressed it already.

I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already. Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.

I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers? The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.

Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.

Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.

THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act. Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement. IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered. CLEARLY this is not the case. Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?

That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions. I have not seen you actually address that.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is interesting that you felt the need to point that out when his asinine question was a straw man itself - she never stated that the Iraq war benefited everyone but that the MILITARY benefited everyone. That is simply a fact that is painfully obvious.

Of course, that in itself is an asinine line of questioning anyway because it was assuming that the right is somehow the vaunted pro military action party when that has ceased to be the case. In general, both parties are now active war mongers and this president has presided in an expansion of overseas military action all over the place. Fewer troops on the ground (though we are going BACK to Iraq), a lot more missiles blowing shit up.

I don't really see the real advantage here.

She said :
Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.

He brought up a specific conflict and asked how did anyone benefit in that?

That isn't a strawman.

Yes it is. Sorry that you do not want to deal with that basic fact but the Iraq war - weather or not it benefited anything at all - is immaterial to the fact that the military benefits all.

Or I guess we could simply argue PP's merits based entirely on abortion and ignore the other services it offers. That is exactly what you just did with the military. Bring up a single engagement and ignore the entirety of the military's history to argue that it does not benefit all.

That still doesn't make it a strawman. Yes - I agree, that in general the military does benefit us all. Looking at specific conflicts however, it is less clear.

When she responded with: You telling me you don't benefit from the military? No - he never said that, he brought up a specific conflict where it is doubtful there was much if any benefit. Which is what a strawman argument is

She never stated everyone benefited from the Iraq war.

Se how they are identical in the manner in which they attack an argument never made.

She said everyone benefited from the military - that all inclusive statement includes the Iraq War - right?

No it does not. The Iraq war does not equal the military.

Are you honestly making the assertion that for everyone to benefit from X EVERYTHING EVER DONE BY X must have been beneficial?

That argument is blatantly false.


Everyone benefits from the military. The military has done many things that are not beneficial at all. Both statements may (and do) co-exist.

 

[Faun]

It's illegal to alter treatment to accommodate obtaining tissue to sell....and both pp butchers, nocatola and 'i wanna lamboughini' described doing just that.

It's also illegal to sell human body parts.

There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.

Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".

Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.

The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.

Why did PP reprimand the doctors?

I don't know. As far as I'm aware, PP has not divulged any details.

 

[Coyote]

It figures you read Everyday Feminism....I bet you comment wearing chiffon

Are you trying to be an @ss?

Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics? Why shouldn't a man read about female issues? If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand? A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?

Chiffon???? you should change you screen name to silly after that comment. Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen. You have a brain, use it to think before posting.

People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control. I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them. As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.

The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole. Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure. It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body. It is a residual electrical response. Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.

The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.

No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion. When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.

You want to save unwanted children? Go adopt a few and care for them. No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth. Adoption is not an easy choice either.

Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also. It's her choice and no one elses. I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.

Really? It is her choice and no one else? Are you POSITIVE about that?

Yes.

Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.

I have addressed it already.

I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already. Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.

I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers? The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.

Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.

Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.

THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act. Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement. IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered. CLEARLY this is not the case. Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?

That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions. I have not seen you actually address that.

Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier. I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied. I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.

 

[Lilah]

It's also illegal to sell human body parts.

There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.

Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".

Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.

The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.

Why did PP reprimand the doctors?

I don't know. As far as I'm aware, PP has not divulged any details.

Cecile Richards said it was because of their tone. Really?

 

[Coyote]

She said :
Left wingers benefit from the services of the military.

He brought up a specific conflict and asked how did anyone benefit in that?

That isn't a strawman.

Yes it is. Sorry that you do not want to deal with that basic fact but the Iraq war - weather or not it benefited anything at all - is immaterial to the fact that the military benefits all.

Or I guess we could simply argue PP's merits based entirely on abortion and ignore the other services it offers. That is exactly what you just did with the military. Bring up a single engagement and ignore the entirety of the military's history to argue that it does not benefit all.

That still doesn't make it a strawman. Yes - I agree, that in general the military does benefit us all. Looking at specific conflicts however, it is less clear.

When she responded with: You telling me you don't benefit from the military? No - he never said that, he brought up a specific conflict where it is doubtful there was much if any benefit. Which is what a strawman argument is

She never stated everyone benefited from the Iraq war.

Se how they are identical in the manner in which they attack an argument never made.

She said everyone benefited from the military - that all inclusive statement includes the Iraq War - right?

No it does not. The Iraq war does not equal the military.

Are you honestly making the assertion that for everyone to benefit from X EVERYTHING EVER DONE BY X must have been beneficial?

That argument is blatantly false.


Everyone benefits from the military. The military has done many things that are not beneficial at all. Both statements may (and do) co-exist.

The Iraq war is a subset of the military - you can't just exclude it.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's also illegal to sell human body parts.

There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.

Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".

Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.

The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.

Why did PP reprimand the doctors?

I don't know. As far as I'm aware, PP has not divulged any details.

Of course they have not, there is going to be an active investigation into their practices.

Your interpertation of

Are you trying to be an @ss?

Women can't read medical or issue sites that deal with male topics? Why shouldn't a man read about female issues? If nothing else it is educational and helps to understand? A simple search brings all types of sites so why should one be verboten for men to reference?

Chiffon???? you should change you screen name to silly after that comment. Go take a walk around the block and get some oxygen. You have a brain, use it to think before posting.

People need to stop thinking if abortion or termination as a substitute for birth control. I doubt any women makes a decision lightly, but they do what is best option for them. As for later term termination it is not because they don't want a child but because it is life safety issue or to prevent the child suffering and only surviving a short time.

The reason the fetus is take out in pieces during later term is because it is too large to be removed whole. Any reflex of the fetus is from the brain stem and not because it is alive or feels anything from the procedure. It is like frog legs twitching while sitting on a plate after being removed from the rest of the body. It is a residual electrical response. Our bodies react after we are dead, even after brain death family can't accept because the body muscles twitch and they misinterpret that with willing response to the sound of their voice or a touch of their hand.

The release of electrical energy stored up in the muscles and brain is not living and trying to keep someone artificially alive in that that state is any but quality of live and only prolongs the pain for the loved one rather than allow them to mourn.

No women would opt to not prevent a pregnancy in favor or abortion. When a woman has to make that choice it is because it is what is best after weighing the options for her.

You want to save unwanted children? Go adopt a few and care for them. No women should unwillingly be made to carry and give birth. Adoption is not an easy choice either.

Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also. It's her choice and no one elses. I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.

Really? It is her choice and no one else? Are you POSITIVE about that?

Yes.

Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.

I have addressed it already.

I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already. Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.

I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers? The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.

Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.

Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.

THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act. Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement. IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered. CLEARLY this is not the case. Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?

That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions. I have not seen you actually address that.

Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier. I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied. I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.

Thank you!

There are sane people in this world

I think this is very important because there is real ground here that almost everyone agrees on but is rarely covered as things not controversial do not get ratings (or more importantly votes). Late term abortion limits should be universal and federal and the balancing act between the rights of both involved should be protected. Abortions before that point MUST be the decision of the mother mostly because there is simply no grounds for the government to control people like that. I think that the vast majority of people in the nation actually agree on this very basic idea of abortion.

The problem I have is that this debate is almost always mired in the extreme - pro choice supporters refuse to acknowledge that the unborn child actually has rights that need to be protected and that it naturally leads to some restrictions on abortion and pro life supporters refuse to acknowledge that a woman has domain over her body and must retain that domain in order to be a free individual.

It is sticky because it is so passionate. I never really realized how powerful it can be until an acquaintance of mine actually had an abortion performed. I did not think I would think anything of it but i honestly cant look at her the same now. I know she aborted her child not because she did not have the means to care for it - she is fairly well off, not because the father was a dead beat - he begged and pleaded for her to have the child even if it meant she left and gave all rights over to him, but solely out of convenience to herself. I will never be able to look at her as a friend and it really surprised me how strongly I felt about it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes it is. Sorry that you do not want to deal with that basic fact but the Iraq war - weather or not it benefited anything at all - is immaterial to the fact that the military benefits all.

Or I guess we could simply argue PP's merits based entirely on abortion and ignore the other services it offers. That is exactly what you just did with the military. Bring up a single engagement and ignore the entirety of the military's history to argue that it does not benefit all.

That still doesn't make it a strawman. Yes - I agree, that in general the military does benefit us all. Looking at specific conflicts however, it is less clear.

When she responded with: You telling me you don't benefit from the military? No - he never said that, he brought up a specific conflict where it is doubtful there was much if any benefit. Which is what a strawman argument is

She never stated everyone benefited from the Iraq war.

Se how they are identical in the manner in which they attack an argument never made.

She said everyone benefited from the military - that all inclusive statement includes the Iraq War - right?

No it does not. The Iraq war does not equal the military.

Are you honestly making the assertion that for everyone to benefit from X EVERYTHING EVER DONE BY X must have been beneficial?

That argument is blatantly false.


Everyone benefits from the military. The military has done many things that are not beneficial at all. Both statements may (and do) co-exist.

The Iraq war is a subset of the military - you can't just exclude it.

So you are making the argument that
A: something benefits all
then
B. everything that it ever took part in must have benefited all

Sorry but I never excluded any particular war from the military. I just take issue with what I can see is a blatantly illogical conclusion.

 

[Faun]

There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.

Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".

Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.

The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.

Why did PP reprimand the doctors?

I don't know. As far as I'm aware, PP has not divulged any details.

Cecile Richards said it was because of their tone. Really?

I have no idea what that even means? Again, I can't say if PP doesn't reveal their reasons.

 

[Faun]

There's no proof they were selling body parts.the videos demonstrate they were seeking minimal fees to cover expenses, which the law does allow.

Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".

Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.

The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.

Why did PP reprimand the doctors?

I don't know. As far as I'm aware, PP has not divulged any details.

Of course they have not, there is going to be an active investigation into their practices.

Your interpertation of

Abortion is not an easy choice for a woman and I can't begin to imagine what a woman would go through giving up a child for adoption also. It's her choice and no one elses. I wish strangers, who know nothing about her would get the hell out of her private life.

Really? It is her choice and no one else? Are you POSITIVE about that?

Yes.

Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.

I have addressed it already.

I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already. Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.

I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers? The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.

Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.

Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.

THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act. Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement. IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered. CLEARLY this is not the case. Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?

That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions. I have not seen you actually address that.

Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier. I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied. I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.

Thank you!

There are sane people in this world

I think this is very important because there is real ground here that almost everyone agrees on but is rarely covered as things not controversial do not get ratings (or more importantly votes). Late term abortion limits should be universal and federal and the balancing act between the rights of both involved should be protected. Abortions before that point MUST be the decision of the mother mostly because there is simply no grounds for the government to control people like that. I think that the vast majority of people in the nation actually agree on this very basic idea of abortion.

The problem I have is that this debate is almost always mired in the extreme - pro choice supporters refuse to acknowledge that the unborn child actually has rights that need to be protected and that it naturally leads to some restrictions on abortion and pro life supporters refuse to acknowledge that a woman has domain over her body and must retain that domain in order to be a free individual.

It is sticky because it is so passionate. I never really realized how powerful it can be until an acquaintance of mine actually had an abortion performed. I did not think I would think anything of it but i honestly cant look at her the same now. I know she aborted her child not because she did not have the means to care for it - she is fairly well off, not because the father was a dead beat - he begged and pleaded for her to have the child even if it meant she left and gave all rights over to him, but solely out of convenience to herself. I will never be able to look at her as a friend and it really surprised me how strongly I felt about it.

And there should be an investigation. Personally, I have no problem with that at all. If an investigation proves fruitful, start handing out indictments.

 

[FA_Q2]

Only a leftist defending cherished dogma could consider "we have it on videotape" to be "no proof".

Look up the word "proof", Chuckles.

The videos do not demonstrate what you claim. There is no proof among them that body parts were being sold. What is demonstrated was PP provided donated body parts where a prospective buyer was asked to cover the expenses related to the donation.

Why did PP reprimand the doctors?

I don't know. As far as I'm aware, PP has not divulged any details.

Of course they have not, there is going to be an active investigation into their practices.

Your interpertation of

Really? It is her choice and no one else? Are you POSITIVE about that?

Yes.

Because if that is the case then you really need to address those places where late term abortion is denied to women unless there is a threat to her life.

I have addressed it already.

I wish that would be supporters of abortion would wake the fuck up and bother to acknowledge that this is NOT just about the women but also about the future child who also deserves a modicum of protection already. Back abortion right, that's fine as I do too but at least acknowledge what we are dealing with and it is not simply her rights but the balancing act between the most basic of rights (the right to life) and the rights of the mother to control her own body.

I've always said that it's a balancing of rights - at what point does the fetus' rights over-rule the mothers? The right of a person to control their own body is also a "most basic" of rights.

Your fist statement cannot coexis with your last.

Essentially - you just said that the decision to abort is ONLY about the mother.

THEN you agreed that it was a balancing act. Those 2 thoughts are in disagreement. IF it is only the mother in question then the rights of the unborn are immaterial and are not considered. CLEARLY this is not the case. Do you disagree with late term abortion restrictions?

That would, of course, tie into your statement that you claim to have already addressed the reality that it is illegal to have late term abortions in some jurisdictions. I have not seen you actually address that.

Ya, you are right - when I read it through again, it doesn't make sense.
Third trimester abortions are severely restricted and I support those restrictions - once a fetus is viable then it's not just her decision except if the pregnancy endangers her health or life or severe fetal defects that were undetectable earlier. I think at that point the fetus has rights that can't be denied. I have said that on multiple occassions - maybe not in this thread though.

Thank you!

There are sane people in this world

I think this is very important because there is real ground here that almost everyone agrees on but is rarely covered as things not controversial do not get ratings (or more importantly votes). Late term abortion limits should be universal and federal and the balancing act between the rights of both involved should be protected. Abortions before that point MUST be the decision of the mother mostly because there is simply no grounds for the government to control people like that. I think that the vast majority of people in the nation actually agree on this very basic idea of abortion.

The problem I have is that this debate is almost always mired in the extreme - pro choice supporters refuse to acknowledge that the unborn child actually has rights that need to be protected and that it naturally leads to some restrictions on abortion and pro life supporters refuse to acknowledge that a woman has domain over her body and must retain that domain in order to be a free individual.

It is sticky because it is so passionate. I never really realized how powerful it can be until an acquaintance of mine actually had an abortion performed. I did not think I would think anything of it but i honestly cant look at her the same now. I know she aborted her child not because she did not have the means to care for it - she is fairly well off, not because the father was a dead beat - he begged and pleaded for her to have the child even if it meant she left and gave all rights over to him, but solely out of convenience to herself. I will never be able to look at her as a friend and it really surprised me how strongly I felt about it.

And there should be an investigation. Personally, I have no problem with that at all. If an investigation proves fruitful, start handing out indictments.

Did you mean to quote this?

It has nothing to do with an investigation. Your comment makes no sense in regard to mine.

 

[sakinago]

Joey Boy, you simply don't deserve an answer. You have yet to acknowledge any of your lies.

So,sad for Joey Boy.

No, you aren't capable of giving an answer.

Because you really know, somewhere, that women only get late abortions when the pregnancy has gone wrong.

But since a late fetus almost kind of looks like a baby, you get all worked up about it, because no one gives a darn about the 98.8% of abortions performed on first trimester fetuses that are the size of a kidney bean.

Because it looks like a baby ? Maybe because it is a baby? Late term. Meaning third trimester is most of the time viable. By your own definition that should be a baby. But I guess your idea is that it's a fetus until it passes through the vagina, then it magically turns to a baby. I'm sorry but you lost the right to call it fetal tissue since pp is passing out actual functioning organs

 

[Vigilante]

Love the little LION comparisons.....

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.

 

[WinterBorn]

Love the little LION comparisons.....

"skinned alive"??? WTF? Please show a link to any fetus or baby that was skinned alive?

Or is this just more sensationalistic bullshit?

 

[WinterBorn]

Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.

I will ask you what I have asked others. What laws did PP break?

 

[Vigilante]

Love the little LION comparisons.....

"skinned alive"??? WTF? Please show a link to any fetus or baby that was skinned alive?

Or is this just more sensationalistic bullshit?

But, it's all called FECAL TISSUE, while even the Dr. Mengele's of Planned Parenthood call it....brains, heart. kidneys' and these ....

 

[Vigilante]

Supposedly there was some instant investigation that cleared Planned Parenthood of selling off baby tissue and parts and a couple of partisan judges just declared the videos that featured PP executives freely discussing how they abort to facilitate the harvesting of human organs and tissue...just like they do in China, banned. The fix is in and they were caught admitting the truth.

I will ask you what I have asked others. What laws did PP break?

Perhaps this will help you...then again!

Sale of baby body parts