What exactly is the point of investigating Planned Parenthood anyway?

[Votto]

So... That doesn't really explain what people hope to get out of forcing investigations. The first possibility is that nothing will be found. Maybe it'll get cleaned up. Maybe that particular facility didn't do that sort of work. There's always a chance that nothing will come out of it legitimately. Obviously nothing's gonna happen because everything was clean. The second possibility is that something is found. Maybe a whispered conversation is inadvertently recorded. Maybe some form of physical evidence gets dug up. It's not like anything's going to happen in this case either. The worst case scenario for the White House and PP is that the far right media picks it up for a while before getting distracted by some other scandal. The only legal action that's going to be taken will be against the whistle blowers who started this whole mess to begin with.

I'm still trying to understand what the crime would be.

The narrative is "trafficking baby body parts"

Which gives the impression Planned Parenthood has a secret shadow division that acquires baby parts in some horrific and illegal way, ...

"Which gives the impression Planned Parenthood has a secret shadow division that acquires baby parts in some horrific and immoral, unethical way, ... ."

Fixed that for ya.

Okay, please finish the sentence:

The way Planned Parenthood acquires fetal body parts is unthical because........

This is the question of them getting more $$ for each sample than the cost of procuring it.

There is the question of them changing extraction procedures to get better tissue samples.

There is the question of them taking and selling samples without the consent of the patient.


Any of of those is illegal.

Let me get this right......

Making a profit is now bad.

Better tissue samples for donation or research is bad.

Do you think someone who just had an abortion is gonna want to keep that fetus in a jar? They didn't want it, and that's why they had an abortion.

I'm not outraged by what you think I should be

Making a profit off of killing people is a problem, just like the Nazi war machine taking Jewish gold and hair and teeth and belongings before being shipped away to die was a problem.

What is a problem are abortion doctors like Gosnell who targeted poor women, usually minorities, and and then giving them substandard care so as to cut costs, while all the time knowing they will have no legal discourse to hold him accountable.

You remember Dr. Gosnell? He was an abortion doctor that was investigated some 30 years ago and was found to have multiple violations for his practice, but instead of closing him down or forcing change, they simply stopped investigating him. It was later discovered that he had killed a large number of viable infants, as well as a few mothers with a jar of aborted fetus' on his desk as a momento to boot.

In effect, the abortion extremists have unwittingly recreated back alley abortions, all in the name of protecting any doctor who is a part of the political football known as abortion.

 

[toxicmedia]

Let me get this right......

Making a profit is now bad.

Better tissue samples for donation or research is bad.

Do you think someone who just had an abortion is gonna want to keep that fetus in a jar? They didn't want it, and that's why they had an abortion.

I'm not outraged by what you think I should be

If they broke the law, they broke the law. Your not caring about it is moot.

Your rationalizing of all this is quite amusing, actually.

You broke the law the last time you stopped at a stop sign, or opened your wife's mail.

You're not amused. In order to embrace the hysterical argument you do about abortion....you've got some baggage eating away at you, that prevents you from being capable of laughing or being amused, unless your opponents are hurt by something. In it's most malignant form, your opinion causes abortion clinic bombings.

Welcome to the mindset of an extremist

Nice attempt at rationalizing, but tue quo que is not a valid argument, and hasn't been since Nuremberg.

I actually don't see a valid reason to regulate abortion before viability, however I don't see a right to it, so if Alabama wants to outlaw it, so be it. Also, I refuse to accept the fact that abortion is somehow morally right. When used for non therapeutic reasons it is vulgar and something to be ashamed of. That being said my libertarian side doesn't see a reason for government to regulate it absolutely.

I think cloaking what is fundamentally a religious view, behind the rights of states, to make it look less like religion in legislation...is vulgar, and you should be ashamed for your involvement.

Viability wasn't the primary concern within the majority of opinions considered in Roe V Wade. It's about wether or not a fetus has a cerebral cortex

Religion isn't the reason for some people's opposition to elective abortion.

Secular Pro-Life - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And religious views are not banned in our government, its recognizing a religion and forcing other to participate in said religion that is banned.

Viability has always been the measuring stick, the issue has become that we have gotten better and better and saving pre-mature infants.

Blah buh blah buh blah, more drama.

The "babies" you insist on forcing women to have will be largely unwanted, and even if adoptions are aranged, you're inflicting other people with lifelong consequences for you fragile sensabilities

 

[toxicmedia]

I'm still trying to understand what the crime would be.

The narrative is "trafficking baby body parts"

Which gives the impression Planned Parenthood has a secret shadow division that acquires baby parts in some horrific and illegal way, ...

"Which gives the impression Planned Parenthood has a secret shadow division that acquires baby parts in some horrific and immoral, unethical way, ... ."

Fixed that for ya.

Okay, please finish the sentence:

The way Planned Parenthood acquires fetal body parts is unthical because........

This is the question of them getting more $$ for each sample than the cost of procuring it.

There is the question of them changing extraction procedures to get better tissue samples.

There is the question of them taking and selling samples without the consent of the patient.


Any of of those is illegal.

Let me get this right......

Making a profit is now bad.

Better tissue samples for donation or research is bad.

Do you think someone who just had an abortion is gonna want to keep that fetus in a jar? They didn't want it, and that's why they had an abortion.

I'm not outraged by what you think I should be

Making a profit off of killing people is a problem, just like the Nazi war machine taking Jewish gold and hair and teeth and belongings before being shipped away to die was a problem.

What is a problem are abortion doctors like Gosnell who targeted poor women, usually minorities, and and then giving them substandard care so as to cut costs, while all the time knowing they will have no legal discourse to hold him accountable.

You remember Dr. Gosnell? He was an abortion doctor that was investigated some 30 years ago and was found to have multiple violations for his practice, but instead of closing him down or forcing change, they simply stopped investigating him. It was later discovered that he had killed a large number of viable infants, as well as a few mothers with a jar of aborted fetus' on his desk as a momento to boot.

In effect, the abortion extremists have unwittingly recreated back alley abortions, all in the name of protecting any doctor who is a part of the political football known as abortion.

You frickken people can't even talk about this without the Hollywood drama.

That's the problem

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Making a profit off of killing people is a problem, just like the Nazi war machine taking Jewish gold and hair and teeth and belongings before being shipped away to die was a problem.

What is a problem are abortion doctors like Gosnell who targeted poor women, usually minorities, and and then giving them substandard care so as to cut costs, while all the time knowing they will have no legal discourse to hold him accountable.

You remember Dr. Gosnell? He was an abortion doctor that was investigated some 30 years ago and was found to have multiple violations for his practice, but instead of closing him down or forcing change, they simply stopped investigating him. It was later discovered that he had killed a large number of viable infants, as well as a few mothers with a jar of aborted fetus' on his desk as a momento to boot.

In effect, the abortion extremists have unwittingly recreated back alley abortions, all in the name of protecting any doctor who is a part of the political football known as abortion.

You frickken people can't even talk about this without the Hollywood drama.

That's the problem

Dr. Gosnell wasn't made up by Hollywood. I realize you don't believe me but it's still true.

 

[toxicmedia]

Making a profit off of killing people is a problem, just like the Nazi war machine taking Jewish gold and hair and teeth and belongings before being shipped away to die was a problem.

What is a problem are abortion doctors like Gosnell who targeted poor women, usually minorities, and and then giving them substandard care so as to cut costs, while all the time knowing they will have no legal discourse to hold him accountable.

You remember Dr. Gosnell? He was an abortion doctor that was investigated some 30 years ago and was found to have multiple violations for his practice, but instead of closing him down or forcing change, they simply stopped investigating him. It was later discovered that he had killed a large number of viable infants, as well as a few mothers with a jar of aborted fetus' on his desk as a momento to boot.

In effect, the abortion extremists have unwittingly recreated back alley abortions, all in the name of protecting any doctor who is a part of the political football known as abortion.

You frickken people can't even talk about this without the Hollywood drama.

That's the problem

Dr. Gosnell wasn't made up by Hollywood. I realize you don't believe me but it's still true.

One evil doctor doesn't affect the larger picture from a policy standpoint IMO

 

[martybegan]

If they broke the law, they broke the law. Your not caring about it is moot.

Your rationalizing of all this is quite amusing, actually.

You broke the law the last time you stopped at a stop sign, or opened your wife's mail.

You're not amused. In order to embrace the hysterical argument you do about abortion....you've got some baggage eating away at you, that prevents you from being capable of laughing or being amused, unless your opponents are hurt by something. In it's most malignant form, your opinion causes abortion clinic bombings.

Welcome to the mindset of an extremist

Nice attempt at rationalizing, but tue quo que is not a valid argument, and hasn't been since Nuremberg.

I actually don't see a valid reason to regulate abortion before viability, however I don't see a right to it, so if Alabama wants to outlaw it, so be it. Also, I refuse to accept the fact that abortion is somehow morally right. When used for non therapeutic reasons it is vulgar and something to be ashamed of. That being said my libertarian side doesn't see a reason for government to regulate it absolutely.

I think cloaking what is fundamentally a religious view, behind the rights of states, to make it look less like religion in legislation...is vulgar, and you should be ashamed for your involvement.

Viability wasn't the primary concern within the majority of opinions considered in Roe V Wade. It's about wether or not a fetus has a cerebral cortex

Religion isn't the reason for some people's opposition to elective abortion.

Secular Pro-Life - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And religious views are not banned in our government, its recognizing a religion and forcing other to participate in said religion that is banned.

Viability has always been the measuring stick, the issue has become that we have gotten better and better and saving pre-mature infants.

Blah buh blah buh blah, more drama.

The "babies" you insist on forcing women to have will be largely unwanted, and even if adoptions are arranged, you're inflicting other people with lifelong consequences for you fragile sensibilities

with modern contraception becoming pregnant through consensual sex should be a thing of the past. I have answered all your retorts, and all you have is basically "old man yells at cloud" as a final response.

and i fixed your spelling errors for you.

 

[toxicmedia]

You broke the law the last time you stopped at a stop sign, or opened your wife's mail.

You're not amused. In order to embrace the hysterical argument you do about abortion....you've got some baggage eating away at you, that prevents you from being capable of laughing or being amused, unless your opponents are hurt by something. In it's most malignant form, your opinion causes abortion clinic bombings.

Welcome to the mindset of an extremist

Nice attempt at rationalizing, but tue quo que is not a valid argument, and hasn't been since Nuremberg.

I actually don't see a valid reason to regulate abortion before viability, however I don't see a right to it, so if Alabama wants to outlaw it, so be it. Also, I refuse to accept the fact that abortion is somehow morally right. When used for non therapeutic reasons it is vulgar and something to be ashamed of. That being said my libertarian side doesn't see a reason for government to regulate it absolutely.

I think cloaking what is fundamentally a religious view, behind the rights of states, to make it look less like religion in legislation...is vulgar, and you should be ashamed for your involvement.

Viability wasn't the primary concern within the majority of opinions considered in Roe V Wade. It's about wether or not a fetus has a cerebral cortex

Religion isn't the reason for some people's opposition to elective abortion.

Secular Pro-Life - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And religious views are not banned in our government, its recognizing a religion and forcing other to participate in said religion that is banned.

Viability has always been the measuring stick, the issue has become that we have gotten better and better and saving pre-mature infants.

Blah buh blah buh blah, more drama.

The "babies" you insist on forcing women to have will be largely unwanted, and even if adoptions are arranged, you're inflicting other people with lifelong consequences for you fragile sensibilities

with modern contraception becoming pregnant through consensual sex should be a thing of the past. I have answered all your retorts, and all you have is basically "old man yells at cloud" as a final response.

and i fixed your spelling errors for you.

I wonder if your disapproval of abortion resulting from consensual sex might be tied into a disapproval of consensual sex itself.

I'm in a different sort of mood this morning, and I apologize for my hostile responses so far. There are two social issues that set me off when the argument evokes religious views. Abortion and gay marriage.

If you'll allow me to present my case.

In spite of views some hold...there are instances when children are brought into the world that would have been better off never born. The notion that all babies are in demand for adoption doesn't usually include the fact that healthy white babies are in demand, but Latino or Black babies, especially crack babies are not

Forcing a woman to have a baby has implications pro lifers seem to minimize, and deserved by the mother, seemingly without regard for what type of life that child may have.

Setting aside the personal liberty a mother loses for 6 months while being forced to carry a fetus, and 3 more to carry a baby, and give birth...I don't see enough responsibility assumed for ensuring a "normal" upbringing for the babies, from those who force it to happen.

I have an idea. Why don't we have a special national ballot, where the legality of abortion is decided. Those who feel strongly enough to vote, and they vote for complete bans on abortion, must also register in a national database of potential adoptive parents. Of course when they're selected, they need to be screened. But that way the people that force unwanted babies to be born, deal with the implications. Crack babies, special needs kids, or otherwise.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the children of rape are to be aborted why haven't the children of Jaycee Dugard and Amanda Berry been aborted? Technically they have been born which shouldn't stop a post birth abortion.

The children of these rapes are still with mothers forced to raise them. Why should these women be reminded of their violation every day?

 

[toxicmedia]

If the children of rape are to be aborted why haven't the children of Jaycee Dugard and Amanda Berry been aborted? Technically they have been born which shouldn't stop a post birth abortion.

The children of these rapes are still with mothers forced to raise them. Why should these women be reminded of their violation every day?

Post birth abortion?

I've not heard that before.

Are you against abortion in cases of rape?

 

[martybegan]

Nice attempt at rationalizing, but tue quo que is not a valid argument, and hasn't been since Nuremberg.

I actually don't see a valid reason to regulate abortion before viability, however I don't see a right to it, so if Alabama wants to outlaw it, so be it. Also, I refuse to accept the fact that abortion is somehow morally right. When used for non therapeutic reasons it is vulgar and something to be ashamed of. That being said my libertarian side doesn't see a reason for government to regulate it absolutely.

I think cloaking what is fundamentally a religious view, behind the rights of states, to make it look less like religion in legislation...is vulgar, and you should be ashamed for your involvement.

Viability wasn't the primary concern within the majority of opinions considered in Roe V Wade. It's about wether or not a fetus has a cerebral cortex

Religion isn't the reason for some people's opposition to elective abortion.

Secular Pro-Life - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And religious views are not banned in our government, its recognizing a religion and forcing other to participate in said religion that is banned.

Viability has always been the measuring stick, the issue has become that we have gotten better and better and saving pre-mature infants.

Blah buh blah buh blah, more drama.

The "babies" you insist on forcing women to have will be largely unwanted, and even if adoptions are arranged, you're inflicting other people with lifelong consequences for you fragile sensibilities

with modern contraception becoming pregnant through consensual sex should be a thing of the past. I have answered all your retorts, and all you have is basically "old man yells at cloud" as a final response.

and i fixed your spelling errors for you.

I wonder if your disapproval of abortion resulting from consensual sex might be tied into a disapproval of consensual sex itself.

I'm in a different sort of mood this morning, and I apologize for my hostile responses so far. There are two social issues that set me off when the argument evokes religious views. Abortion and gay marriage.

If you'll allow me to present my case.

In spite of views some hold...there are instances when children are brought into the world that would have been better off never born. The notion that all babies are in demand for adoption doesn't usually include the fact that healthy white babies are in demand, but Latino or Black babies, especially crack babies are not

Forcing a woman to have a baby has implications pro lifers seem to minimize, and deserved by the mother, seemingly without regard for what type of life that child may have.

Setting aside the personal liberty a mother loses for 6 months while being forced to carry a fetus, and 3 more to carry a baby, and give birth...I don't see enough responsibility assumed for ensuring a "normal" upbringing for the babies, from those who force it to happen.

I have an idea. Why don't we have a special national ballot, where the legality of abortion is decided. Those who feel strongly enough to vote, and they vote for complete bans on abortion, must also register in a national database of potential adoptive parents. Of course when they're selected, they need to be screened. But that way the people that force unwanted babies to be born, deal with the implications. Crack babies, special needs kids, or otherwise.

I am a huge fan of consensual sex, pre-marital, post-marital, sloppy drunken hookups, whatever. What I am not a fan of is the concept that accepting an open sexual society means people can ignore the very real consequences of sex, i.e. pregnancy. I married a woman from a very traditional culture, and we had to be careful not to get pregnant prior to marriage so as not to offend her family. Being careful was not all that difficult, but it required a bit of planning and caution. So If we could handle it, others should be able to do it as well. That being said, my libertarian side says abortion isn't something to be banned, but saying it should be legal does not stop me from considering those who could have prevented becoming pregnant assholes for resorting to killing something for their convenience.

Going back to this whole PP kerfluffle, the people who made this video brought some of the less tasteful visions of the abortion industry, thus bringing in the moral component that abortion rights activists feverishly hope to keep in the shadows.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I wonder if your disapproval of abortion resulting from consensual sex might be tied into a disapproval of consensual sex itself.

I'm just going to address this particular statement. The problem isn't the sex. Sex is a sacred, joyous act that should be encouraged for both recreation and reproduction. The problem isn't the pregnancy. Pregnancy is equally an amazing and happy event and a testament to human ability for creation. The problem is partially that the child is unwanted. Every child deserves to be born into and raised in a loving, nourishing home. The problem is that the means of disposing of the child involves something we see as murder. Currently there is no way to remove the growing child from the mother prematurely in a non-lethal manner.

Tl; dr: Basically what martybegan said.