# Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Baby Body Parts



## Jeffery

Breaking news... Planned Parenthood involved in sale of late-term fetal body parts for profit...
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU[/ame]
.


----------



## poppy

Planned Parenthood has always been a disgusting organization and was started to keep the black population down. Am I surprised by this? Not at all. But, some will cheer it as a wonderful idea. The debauchery of civilization continues.


----------



## Woolieface

_"We&#8217;ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I&#8217;m not going to crush that part. I&#8217;m going to basically crush below, I&#8217;m going to crush above, and I&#8217;m going to see if I can get it all intact. I&#8217;d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they&#8217;ll know where they&#8217;re putting the forceps."_ - Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the senior director for medical services at Planned Parenthood

http://www.examiner.com/article/planned-parenthood-caught-selling-aborted-babies-body-parts-video


----------



## gibbsgirl

Planned parenthood is awful. Has been since its inception.

I'm not shocked by how far gone our society in Awareness of horrible wrong things. Knowing the historical and contemporary work of this company and who it's allies are. And, seeing how blind and/or willfully tolerant of this group the public at large is, opened my mind to the realization that there's no real hope for a better future for us under the current national and global ruli g classes. we're too far gone. Have been for quite a few decades now. And, we're not likely to pick a new road, til we're done traveling this one.

Made me sad. But, also relieved me because I didn't stress about worrying i wasn't doing my part to make the world a better place. What a waste of time and money.

So I just focus on taking care of our personal needs. Far more productive. That's something I can make a difference doing.


----------



## JJ Grandits

This is disgusting. This cold hearted pig of a woman ranks right up there with Nazi death camp Doctors. There is a special place in hell for her. And for all those who work with her or support her.

What do they do with what they don't sell?
Make soup?
I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

I'm waiting for someone to say "well, it was just going into the garbage anyway" in true, enlightened progressive thought.

Thought I couldn't imagine anything more disgusting than "late term" abortion, but they've topped it now.


----------



## InvalidID

Ozarks Tom said:


> I'm waiting for someone to say "well, it was just going into the garbage anyway" in true, enlightened progressive thought.
> 
> Thought I couldn't imagine anything more disgusting than "late term" abortion, but they've topped it now.


 Only quoted because it needs to be in print more than once.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Ozarks Tom said:


> I'm waiting for someone to say "well, it was just going into the garbage anyway" in true, enlightened progressive thought.
> 
> Thought I couldn't imagine anything more disgusting than "late term" abortion, but they've topped it now.


I agree. The progressives blood lust for the innocence has fallen to a new low. History will rank this ghoulish practice worse then the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## painterswife

Jumping to a bunch of conclusions on a short video edited from a two hour tape over a year ago. It is not a it seems but don't let the truth be heard just take the propaganda as fact.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I actually didn't ev n watch the link. I based my posts on some reading and documentaries I studied years ago to learn about this group presently and historically. There's a lot of info out there.


----------



## JJ Grandits

painterswife said:


> Jumping to a bunch of conclusions on a short video edited from a two hour tape over a year ago. It is not a it seems but don't let the truth be heard just take the propaganda as fact.


Yeah, I can see where it's taken out of context.

How do you sleep at night?


----------



## painterswife

JJ Grandits said:


> Yeah, I can see where it's taken out of context.
> 
> How do you sleep at night?


I sleep by knowing the truth not reading a headline and believing it.


----------



## JJ Grandits

painterswife said:


> I sleep by knowing the truth not reading a headline and believing it.


Really? 

Then please, what is the truth?


----------



## painterswife

That article is not the truth. I am waiting to see how many actually do the research and get the facts. Should be very interesting.


----------



## JJ Grandits

painterswife said:


> That article is not the truth. I am waiting to see how many actually do the research and get the facts. Should be very interesting.


Please explain. What are the facts? I already am interested.
What is the truth?

If I am wrong in my assertions I will openly admit it. However I require your proof of truth.


----------



## painterswife

JJ Grandits said:


> Please explain. What are the facts? I already am interested.
> What is the truth?
> 
> If I am wrong in my assertions I will openly admit it. However I require your proof of truth.


Not interested enough in the truth to do the research yourself?


----------



## Tricky Grama

All a moot point anyway. 
The fetus doesn't become viable or have a soul til it takes a breath. 
At least this is what most progressives will tell you.
1st it was: "it's nothing but a bunch of cells..."
After that was proven to be a lie, it was: "I can do anything I want w/my body..."-no, not a fact...
So then it becomes "women's health." Unless you're trying to clean up abortion mills for women's safety...then it's interference.


----------



## Guest

PP admitted selling tissue and denied the recording saying it was heavily edited, that's her PROOF. Creative excuses. video may be a year old but it seems to have been just released.


----------



## JJ Grandits

I know that Dr. Nucatola is a gynecologist. However you made the claim that the video is a lie. I don't think I should do any research at all. Please backup your claim.


----------



## painterswife

JJ Grandits said:


> I know that Dr. Nucatola is a gynecologist. However you made the claim that the video is a lie. I don't think I should do any research at all. Please backup your claim.


I said the article is not the truth and the video is edited. Spinning my words to support not bothering to find out the truth.


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> *PP admitted selling tissue* and denied the recording saying it was heavily edited, that's her PROOF. Creative excuses. video may be a year old but it seems to have been just released.


Ok, I have watched the video twice now.... havent found that part... could you give me a bit of help here? Like the approximate time in the video that admission is. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I have watched the video twice now.... havent found that part... could you give me a bit of help here? Like the approximate time in the video that admission is. Thanks in advance.


I did not watch the long version of the video 2 hrs ain't cutting it on Verizon's gig plan I have, but there are numerous articles out already and PP released a press statement that boils down to my very short synapses. I do not trust snoops but it listed the story and vidio as undetermined.

http://m.snopes.com/pp-baby-parts-sale/

Disgusting anyway I look at it. The Dr priced the organs at 12:24.00 of the original video according to snoops


----------



## poppy

painterswife said:


> I said the article is not the truth and the video is edited. Spinning my words to support not bothering to find out the truth.


Not the truth according to who? You? Give us a break. When anyone is caught in an embarrassing video, the excuse is ALWAYS it was edited and taken out of context. It does happen, but not always. Let them show the whole video and let people decide for themselves. Let them file suit against the video maker and prove them guilty in court. Unless they make a substantial effort to prove it false, it is true and you know it.


----------



## J.T.M.

What gets me is how this chick casually eats her salad while discussing how they manipulate the baby in order to score a head or what ever part the buyer needs . ---- !!! Now thats cold . brrrrrrrrrrrr 
Somewhere around the 2:15 mark arn't they discussing price . They mention 30 to 100 dollars per spiciman .If someone has a link showing this to be fake please post it .


----------



## gibbsgirl

IMO, there is a systemic crisis in this country between what providing patient care should look like by patient care providers and what is actually occurring on a daily basis.

Not all people are bad apples, but the bureaucracies most operate in are rather toxic environments. And, that is such a disservice to all when patients and their families are often emotionally and physically struggling as they seek care and try and advocate for themselves.


----------



## BlackFeather

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/...-nucatolas-just-talking-about-reimbursements/



> &#8220;In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does &#8212; with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.





> The context of the video was clearly not reimbursement for transportation of random tissue. Nucatola talks extensively about the demand for specific body parts in relation to price. &#8220; ...... Besides, if this was all business as usual, why does Nucatola discuss the strategic policies of the corporate office to have the affiliates front these sales? The reporter posing as a buyer asks Nucatola why he can&#8217;t just coordinate the sales with the national office. &#8220;We have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn&#8217;t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,&#8221; and that their lawyers consider it &#8220;too touchy&#8221; for the national office. &#8220;But I will tell you that behind these closed doors,&#8221; Nucatola explains further, &#8220;these conversations are happening with the affiliates.&#8221; ......... There is no possible context for these remarks to be about &#8220;reimbursements&#8221; or &#8220;transportation costs.&#8221; This is about illegal trafficking in aborted babies, and what Nucatola describes is an organized strategy to cover it up.





> Update: Part of Planned Parenthood&#8217;s gripe is that the Center for Medical Progress published &#8220;a heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape.&#8221; News organizations do this all the time, of course, but if you want to see the whole almost-3-hour lunch, CMP has it available for viewing:


[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H4UjIM9B9KQ[/ame]

Ok I did my research, lets see yours. Oh yes, there is this...



> However, federal law prohibits the sale of body parts of aborted babies. In fact, the sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).


----------



## J.T.M.

Is she explaining partal birth AB when she talks about changing the presentation to breech so the feet come out first, then the head is collapsed?

I think also I seen that the actual practice of selling the flesh of aborted babies is in voilation of a federal statute. (?)


----------



## wr

I realize this is an emotionally charged topic but please keep things civil.


----------



## JJ Grandits

wr said:


> I realize this is an emotionally charged topic but please keep things civil.


I agree. As I've stated in other posts, I'm a passionate man. Right now there is blood in my eye.


Painterswife, again, please give me your truth. Prove me wrong and I will admit I'm wrong.
You're veracity is at stake.


----------



## painterswife

JJ Grandits said:


> I agree. As I've stated in other posts, I'm a passionate man. Right now there is blood in my eye.
> 
> 
> Painterswife, again, please give me your truth. Prove me wrong and I will admit I'm wrong.
> You're veracity is at stake.


Others have already posted the truth. You could look for yourself. My posting 10 more links will not sway you if you are not willing to look at what is already there.


----------



## JJ Grandits

I've asked directly several times, yet all I get is smoke and mirrors.

thank you for proving me right. If your soul can carry this it is no burden to me.

I've had my say.

bye


----------



## arabian knight

Its smoke and mirrors because there is no prove that PP did not say this, is not doing this. And putting such prove out thee will not prove PP is innocent, But Guilty as charged.
They ARE Guilty Simple as that. No one can prove they are not selling stuff.


----------



## gapeach

This is an 11 week ultrasound. A late term abortion would look like a real just 
about full term baby.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JJ Grandits said:


> Please explain. What are the facts? I already am interested.
> What is the truth?
> 
> If I am wrong in my assertions I will openly admit it. However* I require your proof of truth*.


Where's the proof that video is real?
Where are the news stories about the arrests if there's "proof" they did it?


----------



## arabian knight

Wheres the prove that the video is not real? Go find there Truth ah yes it can't be done thats why.


----------



## gapeach

links to 2 bills that are in the House and Senate to help *defund Planned Parenthood.* HR217 and S-51
Review and then PLEASE call your Senator and House of Delegate to pass these bills
Senate Bill S-51 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/51?q={%22search%22%3A[%22%22s51%22%22
House Bill HR-217 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/217?q={%22search%22%3A[%22\%22hr217\%22%22


----------



## Jokarva

Gapeach, my ob class was a hundred years ago...but that looks way too developed to be an 11 week fetus.


----------



## J.T.M.

Bearfootfarm said:


> Where's the proof that video is real?
> Where are the news stories about the arrests if there's "proof" they did it?


Unless you think they hired an actress to play PP's national medical director, it looks legit. Did youu watch the video ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Wheres the prove that the video is not real? Go find there Truth ah yes it can't be done thats why.


One big clue is it's only reported on sites that lack credibility, and have reputations for spreading misinformation.

Another is the lack of reports of arrests resulting from this so called "proof"

A third indication is we really don't know who made the video, other than it was a group with an agenda


----------



## J.T.M.

A response to PP response 
PLANNED PARENTHOODâS CLIENT PROMISED âPROFIT,â âFISCAL GROWTHâ FOR HARVESTED BABY BODY PARTS
He also says Planned Parenthood is lying by insisting it gets âproper consentâ from its patients,â and âPlanned Parenthood does not make money off the body parts.â

In response, Daleiden produced an online ad from StemExpress, Planned Parenthoodâs partner in the body-parts business, that âadvertises 4 different times* the financial benefit that Planned Parenthood clinics can receive from supplying fetal tissue with the words, âFinancially profitable,â âFinancial Profits,â âfinancial benefit to your clinic,â and âfiscal growth of your own clinic.'*â The ad has the endorsement of Planned Parenthood Medical Director Dr. Dorothy Furgerson.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-fiscal-growth-for-harvested-baby-body-parts/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

J.T.M. said:


> Unless you think they hired an actress to play PP's national medical director, it looks legit. Did youu watch the video ?


It doesn't matter what it "looks like" if it's edited in a manner as such to take the conversation out of context


----------



## J.T.M.

So you did watch it ???


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> So you did watch it ???


I can't watch videos on my dial up

It's still an undercover video shot by a man with an agenda, and when he claimed PP lied, his "proof" was another video he made.

I want to see some real proof from real sources


----------



## Smoke_Adam

It is disgusting and wrong. I have seen the video and even if the video is fake PP is still making a profit off the killing of babies to start with. This is just even more disgusting. Whether or not there is a sale of body parts it is still wrong.


----------



## J.T.M.

Bearfootfarm said:


> I can't watch videos on my dial up
> 
> It's still an undercover video shot by a man with an agenda, and when he claimed PP lied, his "proof" was another video he made.
> 
> I want to see some real proof from real sources


 Im still doing my own research on this and havn't decided yet on what is what .. however ... the PP lady in the video does seem to be admitting to committing a series of felonies , or at the very least being a cold , callous , heartless excuse for a human whom doesn't seem to mind eating a $ 20.00 salad while bragging about her ability to harvest a child's liver or what ever organ is pre ordered that day .... without much effort .:yuck:

PS : Its being reported on more news source's than your aware of tho.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> PS : Its being reported on more news source's than your aware of tho.


A simple search shows it's only on the hysteria driven sites, and it's still all a set up from a group with an agenda

They are just parroting the video.

Repetition isn't corroboration


----------



## J.T.M.

Bearfootfarm said:


> A simple search shows it's only on the hysteria drive sites, and it's still all a set up from a group with an agenda


off the top of my head fox , news week , washinton post .. 
Video was made by *
Center for Medical Progress'
* and yup , they are a conservative political action group which went disguised as a medical reach outfit.
Much like planned parenthood is a political group disguised as a health care provider. * One that illegally perform partial birth abortions so as to preserve body parts for sale*




* ~ yet to be proven ~


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> off the top of my head fox , news week , washinton post ..
> Video was made by
> Center for Medical Progress'
> and yup , they are a conservative political action group which *went disguised* as a medical reach outfit.


You're repeating what I said

A liar with an agenda made a video, and all those reports are just parroting the video

They aren't adding any information at all

If the allegations are true, where are the arrest reports?


----------



## J.T.M.

Dude you realy need to watch the video ... its sort of pointless trying to discuss this when you havn't seen what went down . At the very least go find a transcript .

She continues: &#8220;We&#8217;ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I&#8217;m not gonna crush that part, I&#8217;m gonna basically crush below, I&#8217;m gonna crush above, and I&#8217;m gonna see if I can get it all intact.&#8221;
She says between bites of salad .....


PS : You forgot to quote this part of my post - " Much like planned parenthood is a political group disguised as a health care provider. * One that illegally perform partial birth abortions so as to preserve body parts for sale*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> PS : Its being reported on more news source's than your aware of tho.


Here's one I don't think you're aware of:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...Progress-s-bogus-hitjob-on-Planned-Parenthood



> The Center for Medical Progress's *bogus hitjob* on Planned Parenthood





> It&#8217;s unclear why the *video was held for over a year* before it was released, and it has some curious aspects to it. For starters, it opens with a news report and footage of Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt condemning &#8220;inappropriate behavior,&#8221; presented in a manner that made Feldt&#8217;s statement seem like she was commenting on the current issue even though *the quote was actually more than a decade old*.


----------



## kasilofhome

Refuse to bake a cake..... evil
Harvest a liver,or lungs, or limbs or heart or head....just helping the bottom line.....classes


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Refuse to bake a cake..... evil
> Harvest a liver,or lungs, or limbs or heart or head....just helping the bottom line.....classes


You're confusing an actual event with internet allegations


----------



## Txsteader

It's stunning how many websites have come to PP's defense, in just a matter of hours, claiming that the video was deceptive, etc. :whistlin:

_If_ the claims made in the video are untrue, I'd think a lawsuit for slander can be easily made.

We shall see.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

J.T.M. said:


> Dude you realy need to watch the video ... its sort of pointless trying to discuss this when you havn't seen what went down . At the very least go find a transcript .
> 
> She continues: &#8220;We&#8217;ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I&#8217;m not gonna crush that part, I&#8217;m gonna basically crush below, I&#8217;m gonna crush above, and I&#8217;m gonna see if I can get it all intact.&#8221;
> She says between bites of salad .....
> 
> 
> PS : You forgot to quote this part of my post - " Much like planned parenthood is a political group disguised as a health care provider. * One that illegally perform partial birth abortions so as to preserve body parts for sale*


Her quote isn't proof of any "sales" and I ignored the last part because it's just more biased allegations

Show me arrest reports based on all this "proof" instead of more parroted rhetoric


----------



## J.T.M.

Bearfootfarm said:


> Here's one I don't think you're aware of:
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...Progress-s-bogus-hitjob-on-Planned-Parenthood


Well I guess if the dailykos calls it a hitjob it must be ~ :facepalm: ~
What are they saying over at the http://www.democraticunderground.com/

I gotts get up in 4 hrs. for work .Im betting when I wake I will find the loop hole PP is using ... yeah its prolly ( can't spell that word ) gonna be legal ,but I almost guarantee it will be very very Clinton' est .... or is it Clinton'isk


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I gotts get up in 4 hrs. for work .Im betting when I wake I will find the loop hole PP is using ... yeah its *prolly ( can't spell that word ) gonna be legal* ,but I almost guarantee it will be very very Clinton' est


So you're already admitting you said earlier it was illegal without really knowing, and yet you wonder why I doubt the video

The Kos report quoted other sources too including Snopes and The Guardian


----------



## J.T.M.

I think you need to go re read my post ., let me know if you actily watch the video instead of repeteing what the daily koz is telling you


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I think you need to go re read my post ., let me know if you actily watch the video instead of repeteing what the daily koz is telling you


Let me know when you find some *actual* proof of the allegations made in the video


----------



## Raeven

Yeah, I saw the title of this thread and all I could think of was this:


----------



## arabian knight

Bearfootfarm said:


> I can't watch videos on my dial up


I watched videos for years with dial up.
You Start it playing, then put it on Pause,,, it WILL continue to load. and go on to something else while it LOADS. Then go back and Watch. No excuse.~!~

Also you can change the quality DOWN TO 140P OR 240P NOT 780P WHICH is HD Keep it on the LOW end and let it load while you do something else.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Jtm. The loop hole will likely be that they will classify it as medical waste, which is very dishonest. It is harvesting human remains.

I don't buy the argument that the child is not really a human. Because if a mother at any point in her pregnancy sought assistance for care to preserve the health of her and her child, doctors classify it as treating the mother and child for all treatment decisions.

So, to pretend that at whatever time a mother gets an abortion, that her child is no longer a patient is a very twisted switching or denial of reality.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The loop hole will likely be that they will classify it as medical waste, which is very *dishonest*


There is no "loophole" and it is "medical waste" according to the law.

What's dishonest is making a video with false allegations about illegal abortions or the selling of body parts


----------



## JJ Grandits

gapeach said:


> links to 2 bills that are in the House and Senate to help *defund Planned Parenthood.* HR217 and S-51
> Review and then PLEASE call your Senator and House of Delegate to pass these bills
> Senate Bill S-51 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/51?q={%22search%22%3A[%22%22s51%22%22
> House Bill HR-217 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/217?q={%22search%22%3A[%22\%22hr217\%22%22


Already did. Remember, had enough? Take action.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> Jtm. The loop hole will likely be that they will classify it as medical waste, which is very dishonest. It is harvesting human remains.
> 
> I don't buy the argument that the child is not really a human. Because if a mother at any point in her pregnancy sought assistance for care to preserve the health of her and her child, doctors classify it as treating the mother and child for all treatment decisions.
> 
> So, to pretend that at whatever time a mother gets an abortion, that her child is no longer a patient is a very twisted switching or denial of reality.


Is donating organs dishonest? How about if the "parts" were donated for medical study?


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Is donating organs dishonest? How about if the "parts" were donated for medical study?


People can't re-grow organs. 

Women can get pregnant repeatedly. No doubt some would do so for unethical reasons IYKWIM.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> People can't re-grow organs.
> 
> Women can get pregnant repeatedly. No doubt some would do so for unethical reasons IYKWIM.


What could they possibly get out of it? _Donation_ is the key word here, no profit.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Is donating organs dishonest? How about if the "parts" were donated for medical study?


They get consent before an organ is donated.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> They get consent before an organ is donated.


Not any different in this situation either. Women are asked for consent before.


----------



## poppy

Irish Pixie said:


> Is donating organs dishonest? How about if the "parts" were donated for medical study?


How can you even ask such questions? Where is respect for the dead? You have to jump through hoops if your digging and run across an Indian burial site, but murdered unborn babies? Ah, just cut them in pieces and either sell the parts or trash them.


----------



## Irish Pixie

poppy said:


> How can you even ask such questions? Where is respect for the dead? You have to jump through hoops if your digging and run across an Indian burial site, but murdered unborn babies? Ah, just cut them in pieces and either sell the parts or trash them.


So I take it you're not an organ donor? 

I'm not getting into an argument about abortion, and that's not the topic anyway, it's been legal for 40+ years. It's likely to stay that way.


----------



## Cornhusker

The left sees nothing wrong with murdering a baby, then selling off the parts.
No wonder they have no respect for decency.


----------



## poppy

Irish Pixie said:


> So I take it you're not an organ donor?
> 
> I'm not getting into an argument about abortion, and that's not the topic anyway, it's been legal for 40+ years. It's likely to stay that way.


Nice try. Look at the thread title and tell me again it isn't about abortion.


----------



## gapeach

Jokarva said:


> Gapeach, my ob class was a hundred years ago...but that looks way too developed to be an 11 week fetus.


Jokarva, I got the picture here. 5th row. right side.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/sea...fMQRzZWMDc2M-?p=11+Wk+3d+Ultrasound&fr=mcafee

They are all 11 wks
the newer 3D ultrasounds are so much clearer than the old ones.


----------



## Irish Pixie

poppy said:


> Nice try. Look at the thread title and tell me again it isn't about abortion.


Abortion is not illegal. Nor is donating body parts. This entire topic is based on an edited video by a biased group. Much ado about nothing.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> What could they possibly get out of it? _Donation_ is the key word here, no profit.


'Donation'. 

Riiiiight. 

(wink,wink)


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> 'Donation'.
> 
> Riiiiight.
> 
> (wink,wink)


Prove the "parts" are being sold. The video never says they are.. although many here went ape over it and _assumed_ it did. Did anyone listen to the long version? Do adults really need to be told "just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true?" 

You hear what you want to hear. :facepalm:


----------



## painterswife

I have watched the entire 2 hour video. You only need to watch the first 15 unedited minutes to know that the article is lies based on propaganda editing. The article lies.

I understand that those that are against abortion don't want to know the truth so they are going to continue to spread the lies.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> I have watched the entire 2 hour video. You only need to watch the first 15 unedited minutes to know that the article is lies based on propaganda editing. The article lies.
> 
> I understand that those that are against abortion don't want to know the truth so they are going to continue to spread the lies.


Thank you for watching the video and pointing out what was actually said.


----------



## painterswife

Here is the link for the undedited entire video. [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4UjIM9B9KQ[/ame]

Educate yourself in the truth. Lets at least stop this spreading of lies every time you think another fake article supports your beliefs.

Spreading lies does nothing to support your stance on the realities of abortion. It just makes you look like you don't care enough to know the actual truth.


----------



## kasilofhome

Save our abortion clinics....they save our families
Recycling is not killing...it's just being green


Protest signs of justification.


----------



## painterswife

Here is the transcript for those that can't watch the video. 

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf


----------



## gapeach

Organlegging: Hold Onto Your Heart

http://blog.oup.com/2008/02/organlegger/


----------



## Laura Zone 5

* 2 Timothy 3New International Version (NIV)*

3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 

2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 

3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 

4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God&#8212; 

5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires,

7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.


Woe. Just, woe.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Linking blogs of right wing supporters that haven't listened to the video doesn't make a lick of sense. :facepalm:

And grasping at straws (raw milk sales, really?) isn't helpful either. 

Again, abortion and organ donation is legal.


----------



## kasilofhome

It is illegal to sell raw milk. People want raw milk. Can I sell dirty jars to recycle that just happen to contain fresh raw milk.

Or would not be skirting the law.

Would the deception of stating I am selling glass jars.. and people know that they are buying the jars as is.


Can a person claim that they were not buying drugs.... heck no..Judge I was trying to by snow.... and all I got was a bit of ***********.....


----------



## painterswife

For those fighting against abortion.

You lose every time you spread lies. Your posts here in this thread demonstrate that quite clearly. You can keep posting lies and strawman arguments but it will just push you further away from your goal.

You keep posting lies and we will keep showing them for what they are. You keep losing the will of the people and the voters with each additional lie told.


----------



## arabian knight

Many states now are stopping abortions after 20 weeks unless there is a serious threat to the mother. Good law.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> What could they possibly get out of it? _Donation_ is the key word here, no profit.


Yes, "donation" is the key word, isn't it?
Never knew a baby to sign an organ donation agreement


----------



## elkhound

Welcome to a toss away society...starting with the unborn and ending with elderly.


----------



## poppy

Laura Zone 5 said:


> * 2 Timothy 3New International Version (NIV)*
> 
> 3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.
> 
> 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
> 
> 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good,
> 
> 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of Godâ
> 
> 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
> 
> 6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires,
> 
> 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
> 
> 
> Woe. Just, woe.


Bravo. It also mentions those having their conscience seared with a hot iron. We are there.


----------



## kasilofhome

A flag is evil....but this is good and just?

Warped minds of the living soulless dead.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> Yes, "donation" is the key word, isn't it?
> Never knew a baby to sign an organ donation agreement


That's because only adults can legally sign *any* agreement.


----------



## Woolieface

Anyone supporting Planned parenthood game to watch a video of a baby trying desperately to avoid the forceps of an abortion doctor on ultrasound? How about some pictures of the dismembered remains of these infants? Face what you support, if you really do, and if your conscience comes out unscathed, consider yourself a supporter of the worst and lowest kind of murderous practice ever known to man.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> That's because only adults can legally sign *any* agreement.


Yeah...Murderers don't normally get to "donate" their victim's organs on their behalf legally, either.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> Anyone supporting Planned parenthood game to watch a video of a baby trying desperately to avoid the forceps of an abortion doctor on ultrasound? How about some pictures of the dismembered remains of these infants? Face what you support, if you really do, and if your conscience comes out unscathed, consider yourself a supported of the worst and lowest kind of murderous practice ever known to man.


I've seen the videos. It's BS. It's also a moot point as abortion has been legal for over 40 years. 

Can we get back on topic? You know the edited video from a group with an agenda that has been thoroughly debunked?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> Yeah...Murderers don't normally get to "donate" their victim's organs on their behalf legally, either.


It's a really good thing that abortion isn't murder, huh? :facepalm:


----------



## FeralFemale

Pro abortion folks don't care. Don't waste your breath. To them it is not a child, not murder, and there is no reason not to profit of it. 

There is another view on this. Namely the standard of care for women seeking abortions if the goal is to profit from tissue. 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...-planned-parenthood-sells-organs-from-fetuses
You've got to be kidding me! I was directing you all to an article with a quote from the head of the medical ethics department of New York University who stated that the practice is ethically wrong because a doctor should be concerned only with providing a safe abortion to the woman and shifting that concern to the harvest of particular body parts could put the woman in jeopardy. But they have since flipping scrubbed the quote from the article! 

I can't stand what the media in this country has become. I am going to email the reporter and ask what happened.

ETA: my self righteous indignation was unfounded. I found the quote in another article. Geez. Glad I double checked before I emailed the reporter


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> I've seen the videos. It's BS. It's also a moot point as abortion has been legal for over 40 years.
> 
> Can we get back on topic? You know the edited video from a group with an agenda that has been thoroughly debunked?


Pardon me, it's BS? explain that, please? Are you trying to say they are fake? I'll post one here, if you like, with the disclaimer that if you know you are about to see a baby killed and find that abominable, please don't watch. I know when I did, I came away from it shaking and feeling like I was going to throw up....and I'm not a squeamish person.

I'd love to see anyone try to come up with how that would be faked or why on earth they believe it doesn't happen. I'd like to know what you think a "real" ultrasound of a late term abortion does look like.

This thread is about dismembering babies and selling their organs, so I think it's relevant.


----------



## elkhound

* Matthew 24:12King James Version (KJV)*

12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.


----------



## gapeach

People who promote abortion for any other reason than the mother's health, incest, or a terrible birth defect that would cause the infant terrible quality of life is selfish, vile and just plain evil.:facepalm: I would never associate with this type of people. A life is God given and it is murder to take away a life.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> That's because only adults can legally sign *any* agreement.


Maybe they should donate their own parts instead of killing someone else to donate?


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> It's a really good thing that abortion isn't murder, huh? :facepalm:


If that's what you have to tell yourself


----------



## Evons hubby

Woolieface said:


> Yes, "donation" is the key word, isn't it?
> Never knew a baby to sign an organ donation agreement


Two points here.... legally the unborn child is a fetus, not a baby. second... parents have the right to sign those documents for their minor children.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> If that's what you have to tell yourself


If you must attack me, attack my opinion and not me personally, OK?


----------



## Cornhusker

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Two points here.... legally the unborn child is a fetus, not a baby. second... parents have the right to sign those documents for their minor children.


Legal isn't always "right"


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> If you must attack me, attack my opinion and not me personally, OK?


I wasn't attacking you


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Two points here.... legally the unborn child is a fetus, not a baby. second... parents have the right to sign those documents for their minor children.




Only when the government approves.
Remember, the government over rules parental rights in order to maintain authority over the governmental chattel...aka minors.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> A life is God given and it is murder to take away a life.


I will have to remember this next time I swat a fly.


----------



## Cornhusker

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I will have to remember this next time I swat a fly.


Babies aren't flies to most of us


----------



## gapeach

Maybe I should have said human life. I thought that was a given.


----------



## Evons hubby

Cornhusker said:


> Legal isn't always "right"


Agreed. making a misleading video is most likely legal, but it doesnt make it right.


----------



## FeralFemale

> But fetal tissue donations do often help scientists as embryonic stem cell research assumes larger importance, Arthur Caplan, director of New York Universityâs Division of Medical Ethics, told the Post. Still, no abortion providers should enter the operating room with the goal of preserving lungs and livers, he told the newspaper.
> 
> âI think the only relevant goal of an abortion clinic is to provide a safe and least risky abortion to a woman,â Caplan said. âIf youâre starting to play with how itâs done, and when itâs done, other things than womenâs health are coming into play."


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...appears-discuss-organ-sales-article-1.2292550


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> People who promote abortion for any other reason than the mother's health, incest, or a terrible birth defect that would cause the infant terrible quality of life is selfish, vile and just plain evil.:facepalm: I would never associate with this type of people. A life is God given and it is murder to take away a life.


What do you mean promote abortion? Do you honestly think that women _want_ to have abortions? That they deliberately get pregnant just so they can abort? 

So, you think abortion is OK as long as it's on your terms, right?


----------



## gapeach

When I was pregnant and seeing a doctor, he never once referred to my baby as a fetus. The doctor always said "the baby". Since that was before abortion was legal, it wasn't politically correct to call an unborn baby a fetus.


----------



## gapeach

One of my childhood girlfriends told me 20 years ago that her daughter had already had 4 abortions. My friend told me that she used abortion as birth control and that she thought it was so wrong. I do too! It is immoral and also taking a life. Some people don't see it that way. I think every pregnant mother who has an abortion should have to look at the ultrasound first before they give the consent.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> One of my childhood girlfriends told me 20 years ago that her daughter had already had 4 abortions. My friend told me that she used abortion as birth control and that she thought it was so wrong. I do too! It is immoral and also taking a life. Some people don't see it that way. I think every pregnant mother who has an abortion should have to look at the ultrasound first before they give the consent.


You didn't answer my question- you think abortion is OK as long as it's on your terms, right?


----------



## mmoetc

gapeach said:


> People who promote abortion for any other reason than the mother's health, incest, or a terrible birth defect that would cause the infant terrible quality of life is selfish, vile and just plain evil.:facepalm: I would never associate with this type of people. A life is God given and it is murder to take away a life.


Buts it's justified murder in some cases? If you get to decide what's acceptable murder to you, why can't the woman involved in other cases?


----------



## elkhound

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7L75krgvEw[/ame]


----------



## gapeach

Thankfully, that is the way my church sees it too. It's really not my terms and still should be the last resort.

I used to be somewhat pro-choice until my daughter got pregnant with twins and I went with her to every ultra-sound. She got very sick and had to have an emergency c-section. Both babies were premature and had some shaky times.
After that I am anti-abortion unless it is the last resort.

Both my DiL's were over 40 with their first pregnancy and they said that they did not want any pre-natal tests for birth defects because they would not have an abortion. One baby was born very premature with a birth defect that was eventually fixable with surgery. I am so thankful that they both felt that way.


----------



## elkhound




----------



## Irish Pixie

elkhound said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7L75krgvEw


Does this have anything to do with the topic? The date is 8/27/11. 

What's the tie in with an edited propaganda video by a group with an agenda against Planned Parenthood? Anything?


----------



## Irish Pixie

elkhound said:


>


Again. What does this have to do with an edited propaganda video by a group with an agenda against Planned Parenthood? Anything?

Plus the pic on the right is photoshopped. There's no way a fetal foot can be seen through the uterine wall, and muscle.


----------



## gapeach

mmoetc said:


> Buts it's justified murder in some cases? If you get to decide what's acceptable murder to you, why can't the woman involved in other cases?



Personally, I don't think I could have ever had an abortion. Women who make that decision have their own cross to bear.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> Personally, I don't think I could have ever had an abortion. Women who make that decision have their own cross to bear.


I don't think I could either but I'm not going to tell another woman what she can do with _her_ body.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I am definitely more prolife. But, I don't think abortions should be illegal. It is a very personal decision, that I think needs to be made by individuals.

But, I don't think we're doing a sufficient job of treating it like th very serious decisions that it is as a society. I don't agree with stiffling people's freedom to express their beliefs about it's appropriateness morally, medically, etc.

It bothers me enormously, that a lot of people want to avoid making sure people are getting as much information and input and resources as possible made widely available to as many people as possible.

It's not a simple routine medical procedure.

It's definitely a hot topic so it's difficult for a lot of people to speak together about it with little tension.

But, it needs improving upon. 

I feel similarly about many shortcomings I see in the way medical care is delivered. Even less touchy things like the rampant use of antibiotics. Many other things to.


----------



## arabian knight

Cornell University Law School

*Confirmed: Planned Parenthood Breaking The Law By Selling Body Parts Of Aborted Babiesâ¦*

*42 U.S. Code Â§ 289gâ1 - Research on transplantation of fetal tissue*



> (a) Establishment of program
> (1) In general
> The Secretary may conduct or support research on the transplantation of human fetal tissue for therapeutic purposes.
> (2) Source of tissue
> Human fetal tissue may be used in research carried out under paragraph (1) regardless of whether the tissue is obtained pursuant to a spontaneous or induced abortion or pursuant to a stillbirth.
> (b) Informed consent of donor
> (1) In general
> In research carried out under subsection (a) of this section, human fetal tissue may be used only if the woman providing the tissue makes a statement, made in writing and signed by the woman, declaring thatâ
> (A) the woman donates the fetal tissue for use in research described in subsection (a) of this section;
> (B) the donation is made without any restriction regarding the identity of individuals who may be the recipients of transplantations of the tissue; and
> (C) the woman has not been informed of the identity of any such individuals.
> (2) Additional statement
> In research carried out under subsection (a) of this section, human fetal tissue may be used only if the attending physician with respect to obtaining the tissue from the woman involved makes a statement, made in writing and signed by the physician, declaring thatâ
> (A) in the case of tissue obtained pursuant to an induced abortionâ


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/289g-1


----------



## Tiempo

Woolieface said:


> Pardon me, it's BS? explain that, please? Are you trying to say they are fake? I'll post one here, if you like, with the disclaimer that if you know you are about to see a baby killed and find that abominable, please don't watch. I know when I did, I came away from it shaking and feeling like I was going to throw up....and I'm not a squeamish person.
> 
> I'd love to see anyone try to come up with how that would be faked or why on earth they believe it doesn't happen. I'd like to know what you think a "real" ultrasound of a late term abortion does look like.
> 
> This thread is about dismembering babies and selling their organs, so I think it's relevant.


Are you referring to , "The Silent Scream", or something else?


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> Cornell University Law School
> 
> *Confirmed: Planned Parenthood Breaking The Law By Selling Body Parts Of Aborted Babiesâ¦*
> 
> *42 U.S. Code Â§ 289gâ1 - Research on transplantation of fetal tissue*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/289g-1


That's nice, but PP hasn't sold anything. The tissue/organs are donated.


----------



## kasilofhome

But..... it's for the children ....out of one side of their mouth followed by
It's a choice.

Same persons both views.


----------



## 7thswan

PP makes $ by selling abortions and they try to make the pregnate woman feel less guilty about the "process" by donateing the results. The results of the "donation" will gain someone, somewhere, $.


----------



## gapeach

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/07/planned-parenthood-is-trafficking-in-baby-body-parts/


Planned Parenthood is trafficking in baby body parts  
 
 
 Posted by Amy Miller Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 1:25pm 
&#8220;We&#8217;ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I&#8217;m not gonna crush that part&#8221;

In case you haven&#8217;t vomited today.
Pro-life undercover group Center for Medical Progress has released a new sting video showing Planned Parenthood Federation of America&#8217;s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing in excruciating detail how she sometimes performs illegal late-term abortions while retrieving fetal body parts. 
You&#8217;re not having a nightmare&#8212;this is real. 

*excerpt:*

Jim Sedlak, vice president at American Life League, joined the call for a Congressional investigation.
&#8220;Given the fact that the harvesting of baby parts is done at Planned Parenthood centers and these centers receive $400 million in Medicaid reimbursements each year, as an initial step, Congress should immediately suspend all Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood. Americans do not want their tax money going to an organization engaged in the trafficking of baby body parts,&#8221; he said. 

Before Planned Parenthood pretends Dr. Nucatola doesn't speak for them, screenshots:
https://twitter.com/back_ttys?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Flegalinsurrection.com%2F2015%2F07%2Fplanned-parenthood-is-trafficking-in-baby-body-parts%2F&tw_i=620970313736683520&tw_p=tweetembed

At least the word is getting out! This is disgusting.


----------



## BlackFeather

> However, federal law prohibits the sale of body parts of aborted babies. In fact, the sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).


 (a quote from my previous post)

The transcript clearly shows they were charging money for the fetal tissue. They were trying to " break even or do a little better" according to the transcript. Sale of fetal tissue is illegal, it isn't a question of making a profit on it, it is the sale of it that is illegal. Selling it and taking a loss is still illegal. It looks like they were selling it to cover costs of the clinic. This is still illegal. They were selling it so they could finance treatment. Still selling, still illegal. Charging for the ice packs and fed ex shipping costs is not. It looks like those who wanted tissue were there to collect, therefore nothing to be reimbursed. The cost of an abortion is covered by insurance or other sources, so the selling of tissue is above and beyond what they were already paid.

I realize that those here who want to justify this practice will ignore this. This is ultimately a moral issue more than a legal issue. Some just have a strange perception of morality. Just beware of Karma.


----------



## painterswife

Posting articles that lie over and over again just shows that people are not willing to know the truth. It is a sad state of affairs to know that so many are falling for the lies.


----------



## arabian knight

Its a sad set of affairs when just a few can't say oops, I guess I am wrong they ARE selling (Donating) Whatever catch word the left wants to use it IS Still Selling. Someone is MAKING MONEY OFF THIS. And PP is MAKING Money off this there is not one single bit of evidence they are not.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> Its a sad set of affairs when just a few can't say oops, I guess I am wrong they ARE selling (Donating) Whatever catch word the left wants to use it IS Still Selling. Someone is MAKING MONEY OFF THIS. And PP is MAKING Money off this there is not one single bit of evidence they are not.


No need to say oops. That is not the truth. Repeating the lies does not make it so.


----------



## Irish Pixie

BlackFeather said:


> (a quote from my previous post)
> 
> The transcript clearly shows they were charging money for the fetal tissue. They were trying to " break even or do a little better" according to the transcript. Sale of fetal tissue is illegal, it isn't a question of making a profit on it, it is the sale of it that is illegal. Selling it and taking a loss is still illegal. It looks like they were selling it to cover costs of the clinic. This is still illegal. They were selling it so they could finance treatment. Still selling, still illegal. Charging for the ice packs and fed ex shipping costs is not. It looks like those who wanted tissue were there to collect, therefore nothing to be reimbursed. The cost of an abortion is covered by insurance or other sources, so the selling of tissue is above and beyond what they were already paid.
> 
> I realize that those here who want to justify this practice will ignore this. This is ultimately a moral issue more than a legal issue. Some just have a strange perception of morality. Just beware of Karma.


Can you quote the part of the PDF transcript that states PP is selling or has sold tissue and/or organs, please?


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> Its a sad set of affairs when just a few can't say oops, I guess I am wrong they ARE selling (Donating) Whatever catch word the left wants to use it IS Still Selling. Someone is MAKING MONEY OFF THIS. And PP is MAKING Money off this there is not one single bit of evidence they are not.


You do know the difference between selling and donating, right? :facepalm:


----------



## Woolieface

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Two points here.... legally the unborn child is a fetus, not a baby. second... parents have the right to sign those documents for their minor children.


What does legality have to do with the truth?


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/07/planned-parenthood-is-trafficking-in-baby-body-parts/
> 
> 
> Planned Parenthood is trafficking in baby body parts
> 
> 
> Posted by Amy Miller Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 1:25pm
> âWeâve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so Iâm not gonna crush that partâ
> 
> In case you havenât vomited today.
> Pro-life undercover group Center for Medical Progress has released a new sting video showing Planned Parenthood Federation of Americaâs Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing in excruciating detail how she sometimes performs illegal late-term abortions while retrieving fetal body parts.
> Youâre not having a nightmareâthis is real.
> 
> *excerpt:*
> 
> Jim Sedlak, vice president at American Life League, joined the call for a Congressional investigation.
> âGiven the fact that the harvesting of baby parts is done at Planned Parenthood centers and these centers receive $400 million in Medicaid reimbursements each year, as an initial step, Congress should immediately suspend all Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood. Americans do not want their tax money going to an organization engaged in the trafficking of baby body parts,â he said.
> 
> Before Planned Parenthood pretends Dr. Nucatola doesn't speak for them, screenshots:
> https://twitter.com/back_ttys?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Flegalinsurrection.com%2F2015%2F07%2Fplanned-parenthood-is-trafficking-in-baby-body-parts%2F&tw_i=620970313736683520&tw_p=tweetembed
> 
> At least the word is getting out! This is disgusting.


You know that you are perpetuating a lie, right?


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no "loophole" and it is *"medical waste" *according to the law.
> 
> What's dishonest is making a video with false allegations about illegal abortions or the selling of body parts


I only had to wait 62 posts for my prediction to come true.

It takes a special kind of person to think of a full term baby as garbage, whether it would have been a nuisance to the mother or not.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think I could either but I'm not going to tell another woman what she can do with _her_ body.


This is someone else's body


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> This is someone else's body


What is your point? And does it have anything to do with the topic at hand? Here's reminder: What does this have to do with an edited propaganda video by a group with an agenda against Planned Parenthood? Anything?


----------



## Ozarks Tom

I guess it's a lie because the Daily Kos says so.

Berating right wing publications for slanted stories by quoting the Daily Kos is hypocrisy at its finest.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Irish Pixie said:


> What is your point? And does it have anything to do with the topic at hand? Here's reminder: What does this have to do with an edited propaganda video by a group with an agenda against Planned Parenthood? Anything?


Spoken like a true Republican. Not.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Ozarks Tom said:


> Spoken like a true Republican. Not.


I am a registered Republican. Now you'll tell me I'm wrong in 3 2 1... 

I am glad I don't tow the party line and believe Every.Single.Edited video that comes down the pike tho.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> What is your point? And does it have anything to do with the topic at hand? Here's reminder: What does this have to do with an edited propaganda video by a group with an agenda against Planned Parenthood? Anything?


I was responding to your "it's her body" argument.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> I was responding to your "it's her body" argument.


OK.  Abortion is still legal and I still won't tell another woman what she can do with her body.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> OK.  Abortion is still legal and I still won't tell another woman what she can do with her body.


Yeah...again...the picture I posted is not of the mother's body. it's someone else's body. Legality does not define the truth.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> Yeah...again...the picture I posted is not of the mother's body. it's someone else's body. Legality does not define the truth.


Again, what's your point? Abortion is legal and I won't tell another woman what to do with her body. That fetus is in _some_ woman's body, right? 

Your truth based on your beliefs. Not my truth based on my beliefs...


----------



## FutureFarm

It's not "her" liver that is being spared crushing with forceps. In 99.9999% of instances she made a decision regarding her body. She chose to have sex. She didn't do it alone. With one exception, a man made a decision with his body too. I will support letting anyone choose to do what they want with their own bodies, but I will not ever support anyone choosing what they do to someone else's body. The blastocyst, embryo, fetus, baby, or whatever term you want to use has its own human DNA. It is unconstitutional to deny them their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without due process.


----------



## 7thswan

Woolieface said:


> Yeah...again...the picture I posted is not of the mother's body. it's someone else's body. Legality does not define the truth.


Well darn it man, if it wasen't a BABY what would be the reason to kill it.:facepalm:


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, what's your point? Abortion is legal and I won't tell another woman what to do with her body. That fetus is in _some_ woman's body, right?
> 
> Your truth based on your beliefs. Not my truth based on my beliefs...


You know my point. You know the picture is a baby and you know that the government is not a deity to define morality.


----------



## gapeach

We had 3 premature babies in our immediate family, my daughter's twins, and my son's and wife's baby. All 3 had to go to neo-natal. They could breathe on their own or suck, eat or swallow. They were not fetuses. They were babies.

I guess they were about the size of late term abortion babies.


----------



## ninny

Irish Pixie said:


> I am a registered Republican. Now you'll tell me I'm wrong in 3 2 1...
> 
> I am glad I don't tow the party line and believe Every.Single.Edited video that comes down the pike tho.


I guarantee you that if what that video shows is wrong, PP would already have 50 lawsuits filed. As yet, I haven't heard of a single one. I think that pretty much speaks for itself.

.


----------



## painterswife

ninny said:


> I guarantee you that if what that video shows is wrong, PP would already have 50 lawsuits filed. As yet, I haven't heard of a single one. I think that pretty much speaks for itself.
> 
> .


Have you actually watched the long version video? So you are saying that the lies are true posted about the video because it was posted yesterday and there is no lawsuit yet? That is a great way to judge what is true and what is not.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> Posting articles that lie over and over again just shows that people are not willing to know the truth. It is a sad state of affairs to know that so many are falling for the lies.


Just like they fall for the governments lies from obama to globle warming:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
I wanna free lunch,phone,abortion,welfare,food,fake marriage,loan,education, HC,birth control,,,,and WE are "falling" for the lies-that is so FUNNY.


----------



## poppy

painterswife said:


> Have you actually watched the long version video? So you are saying that the lies are true posted about the video because it was posted yesterday and there is no lawsuit yet? That is a great way to judge what is true and what is not.


Yea, I watched it. I saw a supposed doctor discussing how they crush babies in certain areas to preserve the parts they want to save because they have a value, all the while dinning on a gourmet salad and a big glass of wine. That tells me how perverted and cold blooded those types are, and I DO associate them with those who agree with them. I like to fish but I ain't gonna talk about gutting fish over lunch.


----------



## Woolieface

I really can't believe that when you talk about crushing babies and taking their organs that legality and consent even come up as a justifying argument. That fact hits my brain like a ton of lead.


----------



## painterswife

poppy said:


> Yea, I watched it. I saw a supposed doctor discussing how they crush babies in certain areas to preserve the parts they want to save because they have a value, all the while dinning on a gourmet salad and a big glass of wine. That tells me how perverted and cold blooded those types are, and I DO associate them with those who agree with them. I like to fish but I ain't gonna talk about gutting fish over lunch.


You do understand that doctors discuss how to do thinks properly that may be abhorrent to many. It is their job to know these things.

While I understand that that is part of the process that most would not like to think about it is reality. It however does not prove the article true.


----------



## poppy

Woolieface said:


> Anyone supporting Planned parenthood game to watch a video of a baby trying desperately to avoid the forceps of an abortion doctor on ultrasound? How about some pictures of the dismembered remains of these infants? Face what you support, if you really do, and if your conscience comes out unscathed, consider yourself a supporter of the worst and lowest kind of murderous practice ever known to man.


We are born with a will to survive even in the womb. Some think it is okay to override that will with their own and it is fine. Brutal butchers who would be quite comfortable killing anyone to suit their own beliefs.


----------



## poppy

painterswife said:


> You do understand that doctors discuss how to do thinks properly that may be abhorrent to many. It is their job to know these things.
> 
> While I understand that that is part of the process that most would not like to think about it is reality. It however does not prove the article true.


Nothing will ever prove anything true to you that you do not want to believe. I get that. I just can't fathom it.


----------



## painterswife

poppy said:


> Nothing will ever prove anything true to you that you do not want to believe. I get that. I just can't fathom it.


Spreading lies just tanks the credibility of those fighting abortion.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> doctors discuss how to do thinks properly that may be abhorrent to many.


And it's not to you?


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> And it's not to you?


I have my line in the sand. I don't think that matters to you though because it may be different than yours.


----------



## ninny

painterswife said:


> Have you actually watched the long version video? So you are saying that the lies are true posted about the video because it was posted yesterday and there is no lawsuit yet? That is a great way to judge what is true and what is not.


There would have been lawsuits filed within the first hours of that video being shown.

.


----------



## kasilofhome

Liberalism has been called a mental disorder.

Can one really expect every registered republican registered dem to believe in any of the core values of the party...


----------



## painterswife

ninny said:


> There would have been lawsuits filed within the first hours of that video being shown.
> 
> .


That would be an assumption. Good Lawyers don't jump with out knowing the facts. They also know that this is so blatantly lies that they will get more damages if they let it stew for a bit.


----------



## gapeach

*Thai police identify Americans accused of trying to ship infant body parts*

By Kocha Olarn, Holly Yan and Elizabeth Joseph, CNN Mon November 17, 2014



The Americans have already left Thailand for Cambodia. Thai officials may have to seek the two men's extradition.
Thai police say they've been in touch with the U.S. Embassy.
*Not the first time*
The bizarre discovery is not the first time infant remains have been found in Thailand. In 2010, more than 2,000 illegally aborted fetuses were recovered at a Buddhist temple in Bangkok.
Infant body parts can be bought on the Thai black market. Some Thais practice black magic and believe that supernatural power comes from infant body parts, if the rites are performed by monks or sorcerers. They believe that having the items provides protection and business success and can ward off bad luck.
Police say in 2010, the smell of decay led investigators to the Phai-nguern Chotinaram temple in central Bangkok, where they discovered more than 2,000 illegally aborted fetuses. Three people were arrested, including two morticians who were charged with hiding bodies.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/17/world/asia/thailand-infant-body-parts/


Awful stuff goes on and this was only about 7 months ago. This Thailand. You think of the United States as being way more civilized and compassionate about human babies. It is just unbelievable how inhumane some people are and especially about babies, unborn or born.


----------



## gapeach

kasilofhome said:


> Liberalism has been called a mental disorder.
> 
> Can one really expect every registered republican registered dem to believe in any of the core values of the party...


No way!


----------



## ninny

painterswife said:


> That would be an assumption. Good Lawyers don't jump with out knowing the facts. They also know that this is so blatantly lies that they will get more damages if they let it stew for a bit.


No, that would be a FACT.

.


----------



## Cornhusker

ninny said:


> No, that would be a FACT.
> 
> .


If a fact disagrees with their lie, your fact then becomes a lie in the eyes of the left.


----------



## gapeach

crazy,man,crazy.:facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie

More information.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/07/15/3680714/planned-parenthood-controversy/

This is actually on topic.


----------



## gapeach

From the top commenter at Thinkprogress:
_
In the first place, Planned Parenthood is not "killing tiny humans". They are terminating pregnancies (which involve potential humans, not human beings). And furthermore, their contraceptive programs to low income women prevent far more pregnancies than get terminated.

In the second place, you have absolutely no evidence that Planned Parenthood is "selling body parts" and making a profit off of this. None. Except your own conviction that the organization is evil, so naturally they must be engaging in illegal activity. Evidence not necessary for you, because your mind is made up.

*Have you ever heard of a potential human before? * 
_


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> More information.
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/07/15/3680714/planned-parenthood-controversy/
> 
> This is actually on topic.


From a left propaganda site?


----------



## kasilofhome

Although Nucatola thought she was speaking to buyers from a biological company, she was actually meeting with actors working for an organization called the Center for Medical Progress &#8212; 


Why did she accept a meeting with BUYERS?
What items did they wish to get a quote as to established price range.

Hearts, lungs, limbs,livers heads.....


----------



## Cornhusker

Looks like Congress wants to investigate.
Better safe than sorry I guess.
Remember when the left said ACORN was a good group?
Turned out they were involved in fraud, including voter fraud, actively getting people to vote more than once, teaching people to scam the welfare system, showing people how to cheat on taxes, all the leftist nastiness they were accused of.
Obama supported them, actually worked for them, then threw them under the bus when the truth came out.
Planned Parenthood is the same kind of organization, it's a front for illegal activity


----------



## Txsteader

> PP: Yeah, you know, I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a reservations issue so much as a
> perception issue, because I think every provider has had patients who want
> to donate their tissue, and they absolutely want to accommodate the
> m.
> They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as, &#8216;This clinic is
> selling tissue, this clinic is making money off of this.&#8217; I know in the Planned
> Parenthood world they&#8217;re very very sensitive to that.


Ok, that sounds like patients are merely donating tissue. But the rest of the quote sounds like their affiliates are being careful in setting the dollar amount, to avoid the perception that they're 'making money':




> PP: You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it&#8217;s probably
> anywhere from $30 to $100 [per specimen], depending on the facility and
> what&#8217;s involved. It just has to do with space issues, are yo
> u sending
> someone there who&#8217;s going to be doing everything, is there shipping
> involved, is somebody gonna have to take it out. You know, I think
> everybody just wants, it&#8217;s really just about if
> anyone were ever to ask them,
> &#8220;
> What do you do for this $60? How
> can you justify that? Or are you
> basically just doing something completely egregious, that you should be
> doing fo
> r free.&#8221;
> So it just needs to be justifiable.
> And, look, w
> e have 67
> affiliates. They all have different practice environments, different staff,
> and
> so that number


Here, she's clearly talking about their *affiliates* (not private clinics) and dollar amounts and space issues.

While she didn't actually, in so many words, admit that PP sells baby parts, I gotta say.....based on her words......it sure sounds to me like she's implying it. How else can one take her comments about 'breaking even'?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Ok, that sounds like patients are merely donating tissue. But the rest of the quote sounds like their affiliates are being careful in setting the dollar amount, to avoid the perception that they're 'making money':
> 
> 
> Here, she's clearly talking about their *affiliates* (not private clinics) and dollar amounts and space issues.
> 
> While she didn't actually, in so many words, admit that PP sells baby parts, I gotta say.....based on her words......she's definitely implying it. How else can one take her comments about 'breaking even'?


 Breaking even, covering their costs, not making a profit. That is how you take their comments.


----------



## Evons hubby

arabian knight said:


> Its a sad set of affairs when just a few can't say oops, I guess I am wrong they ARE selling (Donating) Whatever catch word the left wants to use it IS Still Selling. Someone is MAKING MONEY OFF THIS. *And PP is MAKING Money off this there is not one single bit of evidence they are not.*


I have yet to see one bit of evidence they are. Donating an organ is perfectly legal, as per the statute posted earlier. PP has openly admitted they donate organs.... no one has provided any evidence they have ever sold so much as a toenail.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> From a left propaganda site?


Yet you bought a right wing highly edited propaganda video hook line and sinker. :facepalm: :hysterical:


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Breaking even, covering their costs, not making a profit. That is how you take their comments.


Breaking even, covering their costs, not making a profit implies *SELLING*!

And surely you're not trying to say that she didn't say those terms, that I'm just perceiving her comments to mean that? Surely you're not.


----------



## painterswife

Irish Pixie said:


> Yet you bought a right wing highly edited propaganda video hook line and sinker. :facepalm: :hysterical:


They keep rolling it that dead fish trying to spread the stink. Something smells all right but not the truth.


----------



## Evons hubby

FutureFarm said:


> It's not "her" liver that is being spared crushing with forceps. In 99.9999% of instances she made a decision regarding her body. She chose to have sex. She didn't do it alone. With one exception, a man made a decision with his body too. I will support letting anyone choose to do what they want with their own bodies, but I will not ever support anyone choosing what they do to someone else's body. The blastocyst, embryo, fetus, baby, or whatever term you want to use has its own human DNA. It is unconstitutional to deny them their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without due process.


You may want to scan the 14th amendment.... Those rights seem to apply only to those who have been born.


----------



## Txsteader

> PP: I think for affiliates, at the end of the day,
> they&#8217;re a non
> -
> profit, they just
> don&#8217;t want to
> &#8212;
> they want to break even. *And if they can do a little better **
> than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they&#8217;re happy
> to do that.*


There's the part about doing a little better than breaking even.....and how they're happy to do that. 

Note, she says they ARE happy to do that (implying that it is happening currently), not WOULD BE.


----------



## gapeach

Home> U.S. 
*What Rights Do Unborn Children Have?*

June 25 2015

By Geraldine Sealey 


Even during her pregnancy, Brenda Peppers, an addict, smoked crack. Her daughter was eventually stillborn, and Peppers &#8212; who also suffered from a condition characterized by a breakdown of red blood cells &#8212; spent weeks in a coma. 
After that trauma in 1996, Peppers never went back to drugs, but two years later, prosecutors in her home state of South Carolina slapped her with charges of abusing her unborn child by taking the cocaine. Now, after a guilty plea and two years' probation, the 35-year-old is challenging the 1997 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed prosecutors to press charges against her. 
Peppers became one of about 200 women in 30 states who have been prosecuted in recent years for "fetal abuse." 
In most fetal abuse cases, women have been arrested and charged with various crimes including possession of a controlled substance, delivering drugs to a minor, corruption of a minor, and child abuse and neglect. Others have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon and manslaughter. 
Fetal abuse cases don't necessarily involve drug abuse. Last fall, a pregnant Massachusetts woman was imprisoned for refusing to see a doctor on religious grounds. 
First Homicide Conviction for Pregnant Drug User 
Although fetal abuse cases crop up across the nation, no state Supreme Court but South Carolina's has upheld the conviction of a woman charged with child abuse for using cocaine during pregnancy. 

more.........
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93022&page=1


I sure am glad to see this. Unborn babies should have the right to be born and born healthy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> There's the part about doing a little better than breaking even.....and how they're happy to do that.
> 
> Note, she says they ARE happy to do that (implying that it is happening currently), not WOULD BE.


You (collective you) can read anything into what the PP Dr said (and you will) but it still doesn't prove they sold anything. 

I still don't understand why the right _*leaps*_ to believe... why not just wait to see if there is a kernel of truth?


----------



## Txsteader

FutureFarm said:


> It's not "her" liver that is being spared crushing with forceps. In 99.9999% of instances she made a decision regarding her body. She chose to have sex. She didn't do it alone. With one exception, a man made a decision with his body too. I will support letting anyone choose to do what they want with their own bodies, but I will not ever support anyone choosing what they do to someone else's body. The blastocyst, embryo, fetus, baby, or whatever term you want to use *has its own human DNA*. It is unconstitutional to deny them their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without due process.


:clap: :clap: :clap:

Because I could only 'like' it once & it needs to be repeated.

ITS OWN HUMAN DNA!!!!!!


----------



## Irish Pixie

Oxankle said:


> I cannot believe anyone would defend the practice of killing babies and selling their body parts.
> 
> Here, painterswife and IPixie; read for yourself and tell me that I'm "leaping to a conclusion".
> http://michellemalkin.com/
> 
> It has been thorougly investigated and proven.
> 
> .


I'm not commenting on your personal attack. 

I'm not going to take a site seriously that prominently features this picture:


----------



## gapeach

*U.S. is just one of four nations to allow late term abortion.*



I would love to see late term abortion outlawed in every state.:thumb:


----------



## 7thswan

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not commenting on your personal attack.
> 
> I'm not going to take a site seriously that prominently features this picture:


If it's a real picture ,what's wrong with showing it?


----------



## Irish Pixie

7thswan said:


> If it's a real picture ,what's wrong with showing it?


Context really is everything and something the right should consider if it ever wants to be taken seriously.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> You (collective you) can read anything into what the PP Dr said (and you will) but it still doesn't prove they sold anything.
> 
> I still don't understand why the right _*leaps*_ to believe... why not just wait to see if there is a kernel of truth?


There is no leap, no reading anything into what she said. Her words are about as simple as they can get.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> :clap: :clap: :clap:
> 
> Because I could only 'like' it once & it needs to be repeated.
> 
> ITS OWN HUMAN DNA!!!!!!


And you expected what? Canine or bovine DNA? :facepalm:


----------



## kasilofhome

Bad parents kill their child... Bad people are people that support those parents.


----------



## 7thswan

Irish Pixie said:


> Context really is everything and something the right should consider if it ever wants to be taken seriously.


And the Kerry is absolved of the mess and it's the "right"'s problem because they post it? You make excuses in every direction for the left don't you? Don't bother with the awnser, we know....


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> And the Kerry is absolved of the mess and it's the "right"'s problem because they post it? You make excuses in every direction for the left don't you? Don't bother with the awnser, we know....


You make everything about politics. Don't you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

7thswan said:


> And the Kerry is absolved of the mess and it's the "right"'s problem because they post it? You make excuses in every direction for the left don't you? Don't bother with the awnser, we know....


No, I don't. That picture was taken two years ago in Bali. Do you understand now? Don't bother answering, I know you don't...


----------



## 7thswan

Irish Pixie said:


> No, I don't. That picture was taken two years ago in Bali. Do you understand now? Don't bother answering, I know you don't...


Who cares when or where it was taken. Changes nothing.


----------



## 7thswan

painterswife said:


> You make everything about politics. Don't you.


The leftys do, because they want something. Can't get something if everyone knows about your adjenda,huh.


----------



## painterswife

7thswan said:


> The leftys do, because they want something. Can't get something if everyone knows about your adjenda,huh.


:spinsmiley:


----------



## FutureFarm

Irish Pixie said:


> And you expected what? Canine or bovine DNA? :facepalm:





See there's the problem. In every biology textbook there's a definition of life. For something to be life it needs to have DNA, grow and reproduce, take resources from the environment, and adapt to the environment. 
As soon as the fertilized egg implants into the uterine wall it starts taking resources from the environment. At that point it has a full set of DNA. It is growing and adapting to the environment. It meets all the biological criteria of life, and therefore is a human life. 
Because the new life has a different genetic code than the mother it is a separate life. I do not see how intentionally ending this new life, for any other reason than the new life trying to kill the mother, can be considered anything other than murder.


----------



## Txsteader

Well, it's gotten the attention of Congress and they're going to launch an investigation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...stigations-over-abhorrent-video-on-body-part/


----------



## Txsteader

Perhaps it would be wise, at the very least, for PP to stop the practice of 'donating' baby body parts. It's far too easy for it to become something other than 'donating'.

Otherwise, PP should have federal funding cut off.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> You make everything about politics. Don't you.


It's all politics
It's all about the liberals buying votes no matter the cost (to others of course)


----------



## Marshloft

This planned parenthood place shouldn't even be called by that name. There's nothing planned about it. And its obvious, the mother doesn't want to be a parent.
I was going to throw a number out there, but instead looked it up.

_An estimated 57.5 million babies in the U.S. have been aborted since 1973 (National Right to Life/Guttmacher Institute, Jan. 2015). Approximately 21% of all U.S. pregnancies end in induced abortion (Guttmacher Institute, July 20_And statistics:



_98% Personal Choice (unwanted or inconvenient)_
_1.7% Life/Health of Mother or Child_
_.3% Rape/Incest_
 The only saving grace to that figure is being a christian and believing in a Heaven.
I'm thinking their are more than 60,000,000 more souls in heaven that some folks might imagine.


----------



## gapeach

I think you are right. The people that I know whose babies have died either in vitro or at or soon after birth do believe that they have a life waiting for them in Heaven. Several women that I know have heard this from their doctor at the time of loss.
Those little babies who have been destroyed had a soul. That little soul would certainly not have gone to Hell.

98% personal choice is a much bigger percentage than I thought. That is pretty awful! What is birth control for anyway? Are people just to slack and too lazy to use it? It is just another example of slack people not even wanting to take responsibility for the seeds that they sow.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> I have my line in the sand. I don't think that matters to you though because it may be different than yours.


Well, it goes without saying, maybe, that it's bound to be different but if I weren't interested, I wouldn't ask.


----------



## Txsteader

Marshloft said:


> This planned parenthood place shouldn't even be called by that name. There's nothing planned about it. And its obvious, the mother doesn't want to be a parent.
> I was going to throw a number out there, but instead looked it up.
> 
> _An estimated 57.5 million babies in the U.S. have been aborted since 1973 (National Right to Life/Guttmacher Institute, Jan. 2015). Approximately 21% of all U.S. pregnancies end in induced abortion (Guttmacher Institute, July 20_And statistics:
> 
> 
> 
> _98% Personal Choice (unwanted or inconvenient)_
> _1.7% Life/Health of Mother or Child_
> _.3% Rape/Incest_
> The only saving grace to that figure is being a christian and believing in a Heaven.
> I'm thinking their are more than 60,000,000 more souls in heaven that some folks might imagine.


Dear God. That's almost 3 *million* babies a year! :Bawling:

That's sickening, as is that 'personal choice' percentage.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I just wanted to say, I think that most people on here, whether prolife or prochoice would generally speaking have a lot of empathy for a couple who lost a child to miscarriage or still birth. It's not even uncommon for those people to have burial arrangements made.

Some people may realize there is a grief process they all go through even if it looks a bit different for each couple.

Some people may attribute it to a spiritual process involving God.

Some people may attribute it to the hormonal changes a mother goes through because of the abrupt end to a pregnancy that her body did not complete.

Some people may relate to all those factors.

Now, here's the thing. Even in elective abortions, all of those couples go through that. Yes, it may be more or less difficult depending on many factots, but they all deal with it, every time on some level.

Planned parenthood and many abortion providers are not doing a sufficient job in my opinion providing support and resources to those people to deal with that reality. And, part of that is because we can't stop and take a breath and allow an aborted fetus to be acknowledged as a life. It's in a womb, and for most of a pregnancy it is not likely to do well outside the womb prematurely without assistance. But, it is a life.

So, I hope wherever everyone's beliefs fall politically on the correct legal rights or prohibitions of abortion, you can at least take a moment to step back and think about this.

Because, regardless of who we agree with on both sides if this debate, this is what's on my mind when these things come to the surface and are debated in the public and media.

I prayed today since this latest chapter has erupted. I prayed especially for all the mothers who have had abortions, who are seeing these casual discussions of abortions who are thinking if the tiny body parts of their babies and wondering if there was any chance the child suffered. I prayed for them if they wonder where their child's remains ended up. I prayed for the ones who are just now realizing they have some grief they put away and never dealt with. And, I prayed for the ones who have to repeat some stages of the grieving process because this has opened a wound for them again.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> I think you are right. The people that I know whose babies have died either in vitro or at or soon after birth do believe that they have a life waiting for them in Heaven. Several women that I know have heard this from their doctor at the time of loss.
> Those little babies who have been destroyed had a soul. That little soul would certainly not have gone to Hell.
> 
> 98% personal choice is a much bigger percentage than I thought. That is pretty awful! What is birth control for anyway? Are people just to slack and too lazy to use it? It is just another example of slack people not even wanting to take responsibility for the seeds that they sow.


You realize that not everyone believes in Hell, right? Or Heaven for that matter. 

Great googly moogly, have you considered the millions (billions?) of pregnancies that birth control from PP has prevented? Did you honestly think the largest percentage of abortions would be due to something other than personal choice?

How many is 98% of personal choice abortions at PP? Perhaps you should find out before the gasping and oh god-ing starts, eh?


----------



## gapeach

It is a sad commentary for women of childbearing age today. I guess if you do it once, it is not as hard the second time and since you don't believe in Heaven or Hell, it's just an easier way out.:facepalm:

How terribly sad.


----------



## no really

Another thread down the toilet :hand:


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> Another thread down the toilet :hand:


Yup. That whole respect thing, you have to give it to get it. :facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> I just said a prayer for you...


No thank you. It makes me nauseous. :yuck:


----------



## Scott SW Ohio

I hope we all can learn to disagree here without ridiculing the beliefs of others.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Scott SW Ohio said:


> I hope we all can learn to disagree here without ridiculing the beliefs of others.


You would think, wouldn't you?


----------



## kasilofhome

Those who support and defend this have views on life that are unrespectable...


----------



## Shine

Interesting, a process so that women and some men can have sex without responsibility that results in the death of a offspring.

I believe that the child receives it's soul upon conception and is then a human. It is only a belief though.


----------



## Txsteader

no really said:


> Another thread down the toilet :hand:


Yep. Now it's just getting hateful.


----------



## no really

Irish Pixie said:


> You would think, wouldn't you?


Hocus pocus blah blah:facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Interesting, a process so that women and some men can have sex without responsibility that results in the death of a offspring.
> 
> I believe that the child receives it's soul upon conception and is then a human. It is only a belief though.


And you can have an opinion. If you believe it's a child before birth... I believe it's a child when it can live on it's own. Who's right? 

Don't mock my disbelief and I won't mock your faith. It's pretty simple.


----------



## poppy

kasilofhome said:


> Although Nucatola thought she was speaking to buyers from a biological company, she was actually meeting with actors working for an organization called the Center for Medical Progress â
> 
> 
> Why did she accept a meeting with BUYERS?
> What items did they wish to get a quote as to established price range.
> 
> Hearts, lungs, limbs,livers heads.....


Something doesn't add up. Why would non viable fetuses or 'masses of tissue" have viable hearts, lungs, limbs, livers, and heads?


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> Hocus pocus blah blah:facepalm:


I give what I get so what? If my disbelief is respected, I respect those that have faith. Easy peasy.


----------



## kasilofhome

Shine said:


> Interesting, a process so that women and some men can have sex without responsibility that results in the death of a offspring.
> 
> I believe that the child receives it's soul upon conception and is then a human. It is only a belief though.


Well, there are those who view the womb as a spare parts factory....with year round harvesting potential.

I hope that the choices that that sick woman to traffic human part sends her to jail and impacts societies view on just how wrong abortion funding is.

The cost of the abortion is paid for....the selling of parts is income.


----------



## no really

Irish Pixie said:


> I give what I get so what? If my disbelief is respected, I respect those that have faith. Easy peasy.


Talking about their faith is not disrespectful to anyone, not my belief system by the way. But it doesn't upset me at all to hear their beliefs.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> How many is 98% of personal choice abortions at PP? Perhaps you should find out before the gasping and oh god-ing starts, eh?


You totally missed the point. What difference does it make where the abortions were done???? The point is the shocking percentage of abortions being done merely for personal choice reasons.


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> Talking about their faith is not disrespectful to anyone, not my belief system by the way. But it doesn't upset me at all to hear their beliefs.


It doesn't me either, it is disrespectful to have my non belief mocked, "I guess if you do it once, it is not as hard the second time and since you don't believe in Heaven or Hell, it's just an easier way out." Christians aren't superior and I resent when it's shoved in my face. It's no secret I'm not christian to that poster. 

Respect me, I respect you. Don't use scripture to mock or lecture to me. Simple.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> You totally missed the point. What difference does it make where the abortions were done???? The point is the shocking percentage of abortions being done merely for personal choice reasons.


We are discussing PP, correct? The entire thread is actually about PP selling off "body parts" (even tho the video has been debunked) right? The poster I responded to was talking about PP. 

Why is that shocking? Rape/incest and the health of fetus/mother, the only other options, don't happen as often as an unplanned pregnancy.


----------



## gapeach

That is the way I feel. I am shocked by so many abortions for convenience. I was not directing my comments at you. I know that you are a non believer and that is your right. You also know that I was offended by the sky daddy comment. However, it is best that you and I not post to each other as well as to your friend,PW. We are worlds apart and have absolutely nothing in common so I will avoid both of you.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> And you can have an opinion. If you believe it's a child before birth... I believe it's a child when it can live on it's own. Who's right?
> 
> Don't mock my disbelief and I won't mock your faith. It's pretty simple.


I didn't mock your disbelief. You are an ardent mocker of my faith. That is why I felt that a prayer on the behalf of your soul was necessary...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> I didn't mock your disbelief. You are an ardent mocker of my faith. *That is why I felt that a prayer on the behalf of your soul was necessary...*


I didn't say you did... You are very close now tho. Do you want to continue?


----------



## Shine

Yes, I fear for you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Yes, I fear for you.


Why? You've accused me of saying something I didn't, and we clearly have nothing in common. Why would you fear for me?


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> It doesn't me either, it is disrespectful to have my non belief mocked, "I guess if you do it once, it is not as hard the second time and since you don't believe in Heaven or Hell, it's just an easier way out." Christians aren't superior and I resent when it's shoved in my face. It's no secret I'm not christian to that poster.
> 
> Respect me, I respect you. Don't use scripture to mock or lecture to me. Simple.


You brought up stoning

And you were never mocked.


----------



## Evons hubby

Hmmmm 12 pages in this thread so far, and I have watched the vid twice..... still cant seem to find anyplace in it that says PP is actually selling spare parts from aborted fetus. :shrug:


----------



## Tiempo

Let's not

A) Mock peoples' beliefs

B) Use one's own beliefs to patronize those who don't believe or believe differently.

Thank you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> ...for the things that you say. Even to hear them scares me - I don't know what to think of what it does to the one that says them. Feel free to PM me with any questions or if you have a change of mind.
> 
> I apologized for that mistake, I only apologize once.


Ah, but you didn't apologize.. you said "if" you had done it. There was no doubt that you had, so you weren't sorry. I learned all about that trick from my father.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *This thread is about* dismembering babies and selling their organs, so I think it's relevant.


Actually the thread is about what appears to be* false allegations* of selling body parts.

Why is it so hard to be honest even with yourself?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> You brought up stoning
> 
> And you were never mocked.


Don't tell me what I do and don't feel. I promise to do the same for you.


----------



## Shine

Here is something from the website of the makers of the video:

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/StemExpress-flyer.pdf

I am currently unable to get into their site but this is what Google provides but when you click it - it just sits there without navigating anywhere...

*StemExpress Home







*

*stemexpress*.com/


We assist the medical research community by providing researchers with maternal blood, umbilical cord blood and human gestation tissue for research ...

ETA - it finally resolved and it indicates that it is under maintenance...


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't tell me what I do and don't feel. I promise to do the same for you.


When did I do that?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Ozarks Tom said:


> I only had to wait 62 posts for my prediction to come true.
> 
> It takes a special kind of person to think of a *full term baby* as garbage, whether it would have been a nuisance to the mother or not.


No one other than you has said anything about "full term" babies.
Why make up these fantasies when the truth is there to see?


----------



## Woolieface

Tiempo said:


> Let's not
> 
> A) Mock peoples' beliefs
> 
> B) Use one's own beliefs to patronize those who don't believe or believe differently.
> 
> Thank you.


Can you precisely define B? It leaves a lot up for guessing what that could mean to some people.


----------



## Shine

I believe the whole statement said "If I have misquoted someone then I apologize" is in response to a post where I was accused of it, in that post it had quoted the post that I had made the mistake. I am certain that that implies an apology has been rendered. If you do not accept that then I cannot help you.


----------



## Shine

I am a little iffy on the inclusion of the "patronize" part too.


----------



## poppy

Woolieface said:


> When did I do that?



She probably just had a "feeling".


----------



## Bearfootfarm

no really said:


> Another thread down the toilet :hand:


That's where it started considering the fabricated video


----------



## Tiempo

Telling someone who has clearly told you that they are a non believer that you will pray for their soul is as inappropriate as mocking someone's beliefs.



> paÂ·tronÂ·ize
> &#712;p&#257;tr&#601;&#716;n&#299;z,&#712;patr&#601;&#716;n&#299;z/
> _verb_
> 
> 
> *1*.
> treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.


This applies to both mocking a person's beliefs and the above example.


----------



## arabian knight

If one that does not believe and they sneeze and someone says 'God Bless You" is THAT then mocking them? According to you it is....


----------



## no really

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's where it started considering the fabricated video


So the whole video was faked?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> If one that does not believe and they sneeze and someone says 'God Bless You" is THAT then mocking them? According to you it is....


That's not even remotely similar to what goes on here.


----------



## arabian knight

no really said:


> So the whole video was faked?


 According to a few yes it is. Hmmmmm


----------



## Evons hubby

no really said:


> So the whole video was faked?


Quite possibly, to say the least it was carefully edited to make things appear perhaps worse than they are. It also NEVER says anything about PP actually selling body parts to anyone which is what the title would have one to believe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

no really said:


> So the whole video was faked?


It was made under false pretenses, and then highly edited in order to deceive people and to further an agenda.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> According to a few yes it is. Hmmmmm


Actually no one has said the video is fake. We have said that the headline is lies and the short video is edited to cut out the truth and support the lies.


----------



## no really

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Quite possibly, to say the least it was carefully edited to make things appear perhaps worse than they are. It also NEVER says anything about PP actually selling body parts to anyone which is what the title would have one to believe.


Curious because whenever I tried to view it would freeze or just not play.


----------



## arabian knight

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's not even remotely similar to what goes on here.


The practice of blessing someone who sneezes, dating as far back as at least AD 77, however, is far older than most specific explanations can account for.[9] Some have offered an explanation suggesting that people once held the folk belief that a person's soul could be thrown from their body when they sneezed,[9] that sneezing otherwise opened the body to invasion by the Devil or evil spirits,[10][11] or that sneezing was the body's effort to force out an invading evil presence.[9] *In these cases, "God bless you" or "bless you" is used as a sort of shield against evil. *
In some cultures, sneezing is seen as a sign of good fortune or *God's beneficence*


----------



## Evons hubby

arabian knight said:


> According to a few yes it is. Hmmmmm


Considering who put it together.... that possibility does exist. Not saying it is, not saying it aint, but even if its real it does not say what the title would indicate, and it was obviously edited in such a manner that its up for question as to validity.


----------



## Evons hubby

no really said:


> Curious because whenever I tried to view it would freeze or just not play.


Quite possibly due to computer glitch. I have the same problem with some vids, this one played ok for me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> The practice of blessing someone who sneezes, dating as far back as at least AD 77, however, is far older than most specific explanations can account for.[9] Some have offered an explanation suggesting that people once held the folk belief that a person's soul could be thrown from their body when they sneezed,[9] that sneezing otherwise opened the body to invasion by the Devil or evil spirits,[10][11] or that sneezing was the body's effort to force out an invading evil presence.[9] *In these cases, "God bless you" or "bless you" is used as a sort of shield against evil. *
> In some cultures, sneezing is seen as a sign of good fortune or *God's beneficence*


And still none of that applies to the obvious patronizing and condescension that happens *here* on a daily basis


----------



## no really

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Quite possibly due to computer glitch. I have the same problem with some vids, this one played ok for me.


Yep, using my phone on WiFi in airport.


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> And still none of that applies to the obvious patronizing and condescension that happens *here* on a daily basis


yeppers, this place looks like a grade school lunch room most of the time these days.


----------



## kasilofhome

If a person wanted to meet with me and claimed to be a buyer for milk I would have to say ....hey I won't be able meet with you because it would just be a waste of time for both of us.....end of story.

No, the pp lady accepted the lunch meeting and stated that her next meet was a 4 so with travel time she could talk till 3.


The items were discussed and cost.

Sounds like a business meeting to me.

Subject matter fetus parts.

So, we have a supplier meeting with a buyer...

Clues lungs,heart, head, livers and limbs 


What was the reason the lady was there....increase in sales.


----------



## J.T.M.

They might be able to skate on the selling baby parts business but the admission of altering abortion procedures to protect organs is against federal law Im sure , as is partial birth abortion, which is what the salad lady seems to described doing when trying to get intact internal organs.


----------



## kasilofhome

Duplicate


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one other than you has said anything about "full term" babies.
> Why make up these fantasies when the truth is there to see?


Would you like to explain why the procedure includes the baby being delivered in such a manner that before it can take a breath (which it obviously could) they terminate it's ability to do so? The term "late term" abortion is a PC euphemism to avoid the fact they're killing a full term baby.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Irish Pixie said:


> And you can have an opinion. If you believe it's a child before birth... I believe it's a child when it can live on it's own. Who's right?
> 
> Don't mock my disbelief and I won't mock your faith. It's pretty simple.


You really need to proof read your arguments. You can't have it both ways. Without the intervention of the technician the child _could_ live, but not on it's own. It needs the mother's nutrients after birth just like it did before birth.

If the child weren't able to live, there wouldn't be any need to "snip".


----------



## Woolieface

Tiempo said:


> Telling someone who has clearly told you that they are a non believer that you will pray for their soul is as inappropriate as mocking someone's beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> This applies to both mocking a person's beliefs and the above example.


I really disagree...it's not patronizing...it's being kind in spite of being mocked. One is for the purpose of demeaning and the other is expressing kindness, even if the recipient doesn't believe.

I don't see how this doesn't eventually become every expression of Christian belief is forbidden on any given thread if it's said to a non believer.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

When I read excuses like "there's no evidence of", and "it hasn't been proven" it reminds me of Bill and Hill's statements, which invariably mean "you haven't caught me yet".

Claiming the video has been "debunked" and citing radical left wing sites as proof is pretty weak, especially when they contain the above phrases.


----------



## kasilofhome

Originally Posted by Irish Pixie View Post
And you can have an opinion. If you believe it's a child before birth... I believe it's a child when it can live on it's own.*question why if that is how you really feel.......why do you feed them lunch...and stated they needed lunch...really if they can't live on their own..... and require lunch in the summer will you some day come to believe that it is optional to feed them*


----------



## Guest

Woolieface said:


> I really disagree...it's not patronizing...it's being kind in spite of being mocked. One is for the purpose of demeaning and the other is expressing kindness, even if the recipient doesn't believe.
> 
> I don't see how this doesn't eventually become every* expression of Christian belief is forbidden on any thread if it's said to a non believer*.


That same thought passed though my mind also, it is evident in past threads of the venomous anti Christian rhetoric which passes the filter fine I guess.


----------



## Woolieface

technically, a child can't "survive on its own" until they are in their teens...


----------



## kasilofhome

Infants do a lousy job at diaper changing on their own..


----------



## J.T.M.

Ozarks Tom said:


> When I read excuses like "there's no evidence of", and "it hasn't been proven" it reminds me of Bill and Hill's statements, which invariably mean "you haven't caught me yet".
> 
> Claiming the video has been "debunked" and citing radical left wing sites as proof is pretty weak, especially when they contain the above phrases.


:thumb:
Exactly !!!! this whole thing is so Clinton ' like ... its insane . 
I called it Clinton' ist a few pages back and this is exactly what I was referring to .


----------



## Tiempo

Woolieface said:


> I really disagree...it's not patronizing...it's being kind in spite of being mocked. One is for the purpose of demeaning and the other is expressing kindness, even if the recipient doesn't believe.
> 
> I don't see how this doesn't eventually become every expression of Christian belief is forbidden on any given thread if it's said to a non believer.


Sometimes it is done out of kindness, yes, but it is misguided and dismissive of that person's lack of belief (if you know they don't believe.)

If you don't know that they are non believers it's much more likely to come from a place of kindness, if you already know they don't believe because they told you so, it is more likely not.. and is highly unlikely to be taken as such.

Speaking for myself, without my mod hat, if someone says, "I will pray for you" and it's because they know I'm experiencing a difficulty, I take that as a gesture of kindness. If someone says it because they disagree with my personal philosophies, it is most definitely not.


----------



## Tiempo

Anyway, it boils down to this. Let's try, to the best of our abilities, to respect each other in both belief and non belief.


----------



## kasilofhome

Well is it a showing of a lack of sensitivity on the nonbelievers to force believers in to a closest.

Remember it is a lake of sensitively not to support gays (..bake a cake ) so that gay believers are welcomed

Forcing believer in their person lifestyle choice is bigoted....I think


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Well is it a showing of a lack of sensitivity on the nonbelievers to force believers in to a closest.
> 
> Remember it is a lake of sensitively not to support gays (..bake a cake ) so that gay believers are welcomed
> 
> Forcing believer in their person lifestyle choice is bigoted....I think


So obviously then the wish to deny same sex couples their right to marry is bigoted.


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> So obviously then the wish to deny same sex couples their right to marry is bigoted.


Wish and force are two separate actions. To call someone a bigot for their wishes is ok I take it.


----------



## J.T.M.

Im not sure how this became about gays ~ shrugs ~ 

what I am sure of tho. is that it's amazing that babies are just blobs of tissue. Well , until it's time to do some harvesting on the bodies anyway . Then they have heads, livers, hearts, etc.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> And you can have an opinion. If you believe it's a child before birth... I believe it's a child when it can live on it's own. Who's right?


So basically, until they are, oh, say 26 or so they aren't children?


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> We are discussing PP, correct? The entire thread is actually about PP selling off "body parts" (even tho the video has been debunked) right? The poster I responded to was talking about PP.
> 
> Why is that shocking? Rape/incest and the health of fetus/mother, the only other options, don't happen as often as an unplanned pregnancy.


According to the statistics in the article, there are 2,598,000 abortions each year. And 98% of those are personal choice:

-------------> 2,548,000 <-------------- 

Babies aborted.

Personal choice. 

Unplanned pregnancies. 

Every year.

And you don't find that shocking? It tells me that we (as a nation/society) are doing something terribly wrong. That is a massive failure of society.


----------



## J.T.M.

hmmmmmmm 15 pages ,and I know its tacky buttttttttt..... I suppose its time someone post a meme .


----------



## J.T.M.

~ blush ~


----------



## Txsteader

Tiempo said:


> Telling someone who has clearly told you that they are a non believer that you will pray for their soul is as inappropriate as mocking someone's beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> This applies to both mocking a person's beliefs and the above example.





Woolieface said:


> *I really disagree...it's not patronizing...it's being kind in spite of being mocked.* One is for the purpose of demeaning and the other is expressing kindness, even if the recipient doesn't believe.
> 
> I don't see how this doesn't eventually become every expression of Christian belief is forbidden on any given thread if it's said to a non believer.


Indeed. As a Christian, praying for someone is a sign of love. 

What the problem here seems to be is telling them that you're praying for them. And that's fine, if that's the way it has to be. Praying in secret won't lessen the power of the prayer.


----------



## kuriakos

Txsteader said:


> Indeed. As a Christian, praying for someone is a sign of love.
> 
> What the problem here seems to be is telling them that you're praying for them. And that's fine, if that's the way it has to be. Praying in secret won't lessen the power of the prayer.


Well said!


----------



## gibbsgirl

Just as a point of reference. The US has about 4 million live births a year. So, yes I agree the statistics for the number of abortions is quite significant.

It's frustrating that supporters of abortion rights (especially the healthcare providers), who say they are all about women's health, ignore or push aside the fact that abortions have health risks for the mother, too.

Complications are not uncommon. And, they're working within a delicate part of the mother, that needs to be protected so that she's not at undue risk of problems with future pregnancies.

I just don't get how it's justifiable that we can avoid all those types of discussions more openly. If people are going to do it, they are not making an informed decision in my opinion without a much fuller duscussion than typically happens both in the public sphere and in the doctors office.


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> Just as a point of reference. The US has about 4 million live births a year. So, yes I agree the statistics for the number of abortions is quite significant.
> 
> It's frustrating that supporters of abortion rights (especially the healthcare providers), who say they are all about women's health, ignore or push aside the fact that abortions have health risks for the mother, too.
> 
> Complications are not uncommon. And, they're working within a delicate part of the mother, that needs to be protected so that she's not at undue risk of problems with future pregnancies.
> 
> I just don't get how it's justifiable that we can avoid all those types of discussions more openly. If people are going to do it, they are not making an informed decision in my opinion without a much fuller duscussion than typically happens both in the public sphere and in the doctors office.



I'm not sure who's interfering with you open discussion but unless you're a patient, I'm not sure how you'd know how much or little a doctor discussed about potential side effects.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Well, I don't think I'm gonna splash the details of my personal medical history nor work history nor that of my mother nor that if many close friends and relatives to try and prove that my thoughts have merit.

I'm not trying to shutdown people's choices, and I'm actually very interested in seeing that people talk about this topic in a way that is far less about mudslinging.

I'm not sure I get what your comment was asking or intending to imply, except to cut my thoughts out? If I'm misunderstanding what you meant, sorry. But, it reads to me like, who are you to talk, and that I must not have a real basis that my posts are coming from.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'm not sure I get what your comment was asking or intending to imply, except to cut my thoughts out?


It didn't "imply" anything

It clearly stated you only really know what little you've been told by your Dr, and not much at all about what anyone else has been told.



> It's frustrating that supporters of abortion rights (especially the healthcare providers), who say they are all about women's health, ignore or push aside the fact that abortions have health risks for the mother, too.


It's frustrating that the anti abortion crowd repeats misinformation.

Anyone who has any medical procedure is informed of the risks beforehand and signs a consent form.

This thread isn't really about discussing the pro's and cons of abortion.

It's about a hatchet job by an anti abortion group.


----------



## JJ Grandits

Is it misinformation or information you wish was missed?

This thread is not about the pro's and cons of abortion.

It's about the ghoulish, inhuman slaughter of the innocents for profit.


----------



## popscott

..........


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JJ Grandits said:


> Is it misinformation or information you wish was missed?
> 
> This thread is not about the pro's and cons of abortion.
> 
> It's about the ghoulish, inhuman slaughter of the innocents for profit.


It's about unproven allegations from a group who sat on the video for over a year. 

If it was really "proof" of some crimes, why didn't they give it to the police instead of the media.

It's internet talk with not much basis in fact


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> So basically, until they are, oh, say 26 or so they aren't children?


Seriously? All pro-lifers don't understand that "on their own" means unaided out of the womb? How about viable? Extant? Does that help? Of all the daft BS...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> According to the statistics in the article, there are 2,598,000,000 abortions each year. And 98% of those are personal choice:
> 
> -------------> 2,548,000,000 <--------------
> 
> Babies aborted.
> 
> Personal choice.
> 
> Unplanned pregnancies.
> 
> Every year.
> 
> And you don't find that shocking? It tells me that we (as a nation/society) are doing something terribly wrong. That is a massive failure of society.


I see 2,548,000,000 babies that will not be born because they were not wanted. *Not wanted. Not wanted. Not wanted.*

Not brought into a life where they are not wanted. Do you understand now?


----------



## mmoetc

Irish Pixie said:


> I see 2,548,000,000 babies that will not be born because they were not wanted. *Not wanted. Not wanted. Not wanted.*
> 
> Not brought into a life where they are not wanted. Do you understand now?


And I see the CDC numbers which put it much lower and trending downward.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm. 

It's a fact, Obama has reduced abortions in the US.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> And I see the CDC numbers which put it much lower and trending downward.
> http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm.
> 
> It's a fact, Obama has reduced abortions in the US.


Why do I accept the numbers provided by a group that very clearly has an agenda? I really should know better. There are some groups that just lie. 

Thank you. The CDC total for abortions in 2011 was 730,322 (not even close to the figure provided by National Right to Life of 2,548,000,000- do you think they made up that figure? Egads!) or 13.9 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15&#8211;44. That was 5% less than 2010, you're right! Obama reduced the abortion rate!

It's still about unwanted future children...


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> I see 2,548,000,000 babies that will not be born because they were not wanted. *Not wanted. Not wanted. Not wanted.*
> 
> Not brought into a life where they are not wanted. Do you understand now?


If they're not wanted, then don't get pregnant in the first place. 

*DON'T GET PREGNANT!!!!!!

*Contraception is far less expensive than an abortion. The statistics blow the pro-abortionists argument that contraception isn't an option because it's too expensive. But these women can afford an abortion.....some of them multiple abortions?????

And if they can't afford contraception, they shouldn't be having sex. Period.

Personally I hope Congress goes over PP w/ a fine-toothed comb. And I think it's time for PP to have federal funding taken away.


----------



## no really

mmoetc said:


> And I see the CDC numbers which put it much lower and trending downward.
> http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm.
> 
> It's a fact, Obama has reduced abortions in the US.


It is great that the numbers are trending down.

But I missed in the report how Obama is responsible for it :banana:


----------



## mmoetc

no really said:


> It is great that the numbers are trending down.
> 
> But I missed in the report how Obama is responsible for it :banana:


He seems responsible, by some, for anything that happens. I just enjoy consistency.


----------



## no really

mmoetc said:


> He seems responsible, by some, for anything that happens. I just enjoy consistency.


Well it was good for an early morning laugh.:gaptooth:


----------



## Irish Pixie

There are some, that aren't supposed to judge others, that seem to think this is a utopian world where nothing ever happens that shouldn't. A dreamy eyed romantic world where birth control doesn't fail and all people are responsible about sex and all other things... I can only guess they are perfect themselves. 

I'm glad I'm not one of those people. I realize that people are flawed and crap happens. And they don't understand when funding for a place that primarily provides birth control loses it's funding the abortion rate will skyrocket. It's a simple concept, really. No easy access to birth control equals increased pregnancies, which in turn increases the demand for abortion. I think it's called, "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."


----------



## mmoetc

no really said:


> Well it was good for an early morning laugh.:gaptooth:


I do what I can.


----------



## no really

Irish Pixie said:


> There are some, that aren't supposed to judge others, that seem to think this is a utopian world where nothing ever happens that shouldn't. A dreamy eyed romantic world where birth control doesn't fail and all people are responsible about sex and all other things... I can only guess they are perfect themselves.
> 
> I'm glad I'm not one of those people. I realize that people are flawed and crap happens. And they don't understand when funding for a place that primarily provides birth control loses it's funding the abortion rate will skyrocket. It's a simple concept, really. No easy access to birth control equals increased pregnancies, which in turn increases the demand for abortion. I think it's called, "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."


According to this wiki article 34% of their services are contraception.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood


----------



## Irish Pixie

What Planned Parenthood actually does:










From:
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> Well, I don't think I'm gonna splash the details of my personal medical history nor work history nor that of my mother nor that if many close friends and relatives to try and prove that my thoughts have merit.
> 
> I'm not trying to shutdown people's choices, and I'm actually very interested in seeing that people talk about this topic in a way that is far less about mudslinging.
> 
> I'm not sure I get what your comment was asking or intending to imply, except to cut my thoughts out? If I'm misunderstanding what you meant, sorry. But, it reads to me like, who are you to talk, and that I must not have a real basis that my posts are coming from.


I have no bias at all. You claimed that these abortion doctors are not providing proper or complete information on potential reproductive complications and it seems to me that if you claim that to be true, you must have compelling evidence, otherwise, it would be an opinion based on heresay and speculation which may or may not be true. 

I believe you previously stated that you have not had an abortion and I haven't had one either so I honestly can't say make such a comment but I do know a woman who had one many years ago and supsequent reproductive problems and she's always said that she was told it was something that could occur.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> There are some, that aren't supposed to judge others, that seem to think this is a utopian world where nothing ever happens that shouldn't. A dreamy eyed romantic world where birth control doesn't fail and all people are responsible about sex and all other things... I can only guess they are perfect themselves.
> 
> I'm glad I'm not one of those people. I realize that people are flawed and crap happens. And they don't understand when funding for a place that primarily provides birth control loses it's funding the abortion rate will skyrocket. It's a simple concept, really. No easy access to birth control equals increased pregnancies, which in turn increases the demand for abortion. I think it's called, "Cutting off your nose to spite your face."


No dreamy-eyed romantic here, just old enough to see how attitudes have changed in the last 60 years re: abortions ad the tactics being used to promote it. 

Personally, I'm opposed to federal funding of PP, specifically because of the personal-choice abortion issue. Medical reasons, I support it. Abuse/incest, I support it. But it's just too easy to use abortion as a form of birth control these days. 

But to the topic at hand, IF it is proven that PP is a) selling baby body tissue and/or b) doing partial-birth abortions with the intent of selling baby body tissue, they should lose federal funding. It would mean they've abused their limitations (not to mention the law) and should pay a harsh price......because, at the end of the day, the thought of selling aborted fetal tissue is still abhorrent to most Americans.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> According to the statistics in the article, there are 2,598,000,000 abortions each year. And 98% of those are personal choice:
> 
> -------------> 2,548,000,000 <--------------
> 
> Babies aborted.
> 
> Personal choice.
> 
> Unplanned pregnancies.
> 
> Every year.
> 
> And you don't find that shocking? It tells me that we (as a nation/society) are doing something terribly wrong. That is a massive failure of society.


I find it very shocking.... according to the latest data there are almost 7 billion people in the world, of which half are female, of those 3.5 billion females about half (1.75 billion) are of childbearing age. If over 2.5 billion abortions are being performed every year every woman of childbearing age are getting an abortion and several of those women must be having more than one per year. I find it more likely that antiabortion groups are misrepresenting the facts. Kinda like they did with the video which is indeed the topic of this discussion.


----------



## ninny

mmoetc said:


> He seems responsible, by some, for anything that happens. I just enjoy consistency.


If it were something good that happened, you can bet that he would take responsibility for it, seems only right that he should take responsibility for the bad stuff also. Can't be a cherry picker. Take the good with the bad, that goes with the office.

.


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find it very shocking.... according to the latest data there are almost 7 billion people in the world, of which half are female, of those 3.5 billion females about half (1.75 billion) are of childbearing age. If over 2.5 billion abortions are being performed every year every woman of childbearing age are getting an abortion and several of those women must be having more than one per year. I find it more likely that antiabortion groups are misrepresenting the facts. Kinda like they did with the video which is indeed the topic of this discussion.


Another perfect example of believing the article without actually thinking about what you are reading and verifying the facts. there is no excuse for this type of propaganda spreading in this internet age.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> Another perfect example of believing the article without actually thinking about what you are reading and verifying the facts. there is no excuse for this type of propaganda spreading in this internet age.


Yeppers, its amazing what sorta nonsense people will believe..... particularly true when its something they want to believe to begin with.


----------



## Patchouli

Trying to decide if it is worth reading 16 pages here to see if the realities of tissue donation from all areas of healthcare was discussed. 

First here is a transcript of the entire 2 hour conversation: http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf

After reviewing that I came to the conclusion that PP is not selling body parts. They are only looking to recoup costs and those costs will vary from clinic to clinic for donating them. Some may be able to afford to ask for no fees at all and some may need some compensation to cover the doctor's extra time and care to make sure the specimens are in perfect shape. Taken with the other statements she made about the effort needed to get what Labs were requesting it all makes perfect sense. 

You will find that everywhere in healthcare. Hospitals are doing the same thing and having the same conversations when it comes to donating/recouping costs for human tissue. There is a huge market for tissue for research today. It's a complex ethical issue across the board. 

It's definitely a subject for reasoned discussion but that was not what this video was looking for, they were looking to outrage people over abortion. All of those outraged people who have ever had a surgery on themselves or a family member should ask what happened to the tissue they quite possibly donated. It's pretty routine on paperwork these days. It also happens with organ donors. Would they be so outraged that organ donation groups "sell" the bits that aren't usable for immediate transplant?

If you are interested in the facts and the ethical issues surrounding tissue collection and research I highly recommend reading this* and then for a deeper look reading the book The Immortal life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot. 

* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071143/



> *Human tissue for sale*
> 
> what are the costs?
> 
> Several academic hospitals in the United States are forming partnerships with biotechnology companies to provide human tissue for use in research, treatment, or drug development. This series of arrangements raise wide legal and ethical issues. Harvard University's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts and the Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina are among the latest academic hospitals to form partnerships with biotechnology companies for the purpose of providing human tissue for use in research, treatment, and drug development. Both of these institutions have entered into agreements with Ardais, a genomics startup company, which will bank the tissue, collect data, and sell both the data and the tissue to interested parties. Patients undergoing surgery at these medical centers will be asked to sign permission forms that enable the medical center to send left-over pathology specimens to biotechnology companies.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, its amazing what sorta nonsense people will believe..... particularly true when its something they want to believe to begin with.



Yes, guilt and shame closes many an eye. As it has been mention in this lawsuit crazy world.... and with a story that captured the media.... there has been no..NO ...mention of legal action towards the film makers.

When you agree to take a meeting with a person fleshing out procurement info on human body parts..... and you can assure them that vital organ can be supplied... i, and others can clearly see the intention.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Yes, guilt and shame closes many an eye. As it has been mention in this lawsuit crazy world.... and with a story that captured the media.... there has been no..NO ...mention of legal action towards the film makers.
> 
> When you agree to take a meeting with a person fleshing out procurement info on human body parts..... and you can assure them that vital organ can be supplied... i, and others can clearly see the intention.


But can you see the truth? I see many who don't care what the truth is they just want to tell lies to support their point of view.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find it very shocking.... according to the latest data there are almost 7 billion people in the world, of which half are female, of those 3.5 billion females about half (1.75 billion) are of childbearing age. If over 2.5 billion abortions are being performed every year every woman of childbearing age are getting an abortion and several of those women must be having more than one per year. I find it more likely that antiabortion groups are misrepresenting the facts. Kinda like they did with the video which is indeed the topic of this discussion.


Hmmm, where have I heard something similar? Oh, yeah -

As Stalin is quoted as saying " one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic".


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> When you agree to take a meeting with a person fleshing out procurement info on human body parts..... and you can assure them that vital organ can be supplied... i, and others can clearly see the intention.


I am so glad that you and a few others can clearly see that the part of the discussion that involved the "costs of shipping and handling" had nothing to do with selling body parts for profit or otherwise. I am pretty sure donating organs is quite legal in all fifty states.


----------



## Evons hubby

Ozarks Tom said:


> Hmmm, where have I heard something similar? Oh, yeah -
> 
> As Stalin is quoted as saying " one death is a tragedy, but a million deaths is a statistic".


I see someone else has missed something.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> No dreamy-eyed romantic here, just old enough to see how attitudes have changed in the last 60 years re: abortions ad the tactics being used to promote it.
> 
> Personally, I'm opposed to federal funding of PP, specifically because of the personal-choice abortion issue. Medical reasons, I support it. Abuse/incest, I support it. But it's just too easy to use abortion as a form of birth control these days.
> 
> But to the topic at hand, IF it is proven that PP is a) selling baby body tissue and/or b) doing partial-birth abortions with the intent of selling baby body tissue, they should lose federal funding. It would mean they've abused their limitations (not to mention the law) and should pay a harsh price......because, at the end of the day, the thought of selling aborted fetal tissue is still abhorrent to most Americans.


I see that you too are fine with abortion as long as it's on your terms. Interesting. 

Can you answer this please? If a provider of low cost easily obtained birth control is defunded what happens to the abortion rate? 

At least you acknowledge the "if" of the video. I find nothing wrong with the donation of aborted fetal tissue.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am so glad that you and a few others can clearly see that the part of the discussion that involved the "costs of shipping and handling" had nothing to do with selling body parts for profit or otherwise. I am pretty sure donating organs is quite legal in all fifty states.


And then some.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure donating organs is quite legal in all fifty states.


Planned Parenthood claims that they aren't selling at a profit. Evidently that meets the letter of the law. If true, why the problem?


----------



## Txsteader

Txsteader said:


> Dear God. That's almost 3 *million* babies a year! :Bawling:
> 
> That's sickening, as is that 'personal choice' percentage.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> I find it very shocking.... according to the latest data there are almost 7 billion people in the world, of which half are female, of those 3.5 billion females about half (1.75 billion) are of childbearing age. If over 2.5 billion abortions are being performed every year every woman of childbearing age are getting an abortion and several of those women must be having more than one per year. I find it more likely that antiabortion groups are misrepresenting the facts. Kinda like they did with the video which is indeed the topic of this discussion.


Was supposed to be millions, as I had stated earlier. Simply added too many zeros in the later post by mistake. Thank you for calling that to my attention. Will correct it now. :thumb:


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> *I see that you too are fine with abortion as long as it's on your terms. Interesting.*


Yep. Want to know why? *FEDERAL FUNDING.* It's what gives every taxpayer a say in the matter. As long as abortions are federally/state funded, there WILL be opposition, because not everyone agrees w/ the procedure. Don't want the opposition? Give up the federal funding. Simple as that.

I'm surprised you didn't think of that.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Planned Parenthood claims that they aren't selling at a profit. Evidently that meets the letter of the law. If true, why the problem?


My guess is that some folks like to read things into others words that arent there. It happens regularly on this board as well as with videos that fly around the internet. Me? I have no problem with organ donations for medical research or for transplanting.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> Was supposed to be millions, as I had stated earlier. Simply added too many zeros in the later post by mistake. Thank you for calling that to my attention. Will correct it now. :thumb:


Yer welcome. I still havent figured out what the number really is.... your source says 3.5 million.... CDC puts it closer to 3/4 million. :shrug: Either way its a lot of fetal material that could be used for transplants and research instead of being tossed out with yesterdays news.


----------



## painterswife

wrong post


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> His source is worldwide.


I wasnt aware that PP operated world wide??? seems like someone may be stretching the numbers to make things appear more outrageous than it already is. Naw, hack writers with an agenda wouldnt do that..... would they?


----------



## Evons hubby

I do wish yall would make up yer minds, LOL it is making my responses to your posts look a bit odd!


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I do wish yall would make up yer minds, LOL it is making my responses to your posts look a bit odd!


My fault. Did not mean to mess you up. I need to verify my facts before I post. Trying to find the numbers I was looking at.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> My fault. Did not mean to mess you up. I need to verify my facts before I post. Trying to find the numbers I was looking at.


no worries, I think you were correct that it was the number for world wide.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Yep. Want to know why? *FEDERAL FUNDING.* It's what gives every taxpayer a say in the matter. As long as abortions are federally/state funded, there WILL be opposition, because not everyone agrees w/ the procedure. Don't want the opposition? Give up the federal funding. Simple as that.
> 
> I'm surprised you didn't think of that.


And give up reasonably priced/free birth control and health checkups which is primarily what PP does with the taxpayer funding? I did think about that. 

What happens to the abortion rate when the free/reduced price birth control when PP is defunded? You really don't want to answer that, do you?


----------



## Nevada

Txsteader said:


> Yep. Want to know why? *FEDERAL FUNDING.* It's what gives every taxpayer a say in the matter.


Not really. There is no federal funding for abortions by law, so this issue is totally off the federal books.


----------



## po boy

Well

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> Not really. There is *no federal funding for abortions* by law, so this issue is totally off the federal books.


Don't confuse them with facts and reality


----------



## Nevada

po boy said:


> Well
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


I've listened to the videos. There was frank discussion, but tissue collection isn't a pretty thing. A lot of medicine is like that, but it doesn't make it wrong. Someone has to collect tissue for transplants and research. Like major trauma, there's really no good way to sugarcoat the topic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

po boy said:


> Well
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Did you read past the headline?




> She also blasts the Center for Medical Progress for using â*secretly-recorded, heavily-edited videos* to make outrageous claims about programs that help women donate fetal tissue for medical research,â adding later that such anti-abortion organizations are not âconcerned with protecting the health and safety of women.â
> 
> *âThe allegation that Planned Parenthood profits in any way from tissue donation is not true.*
> 
> Our donation programs, like any other high-quality healthcare providers, follow all laws and ethical guidelines,â Richards claims.


----------



## arabian knight

Anybody at any time can CLAIM that they are doing things legally. Well Nobody in there right mind would ADMIT something of wrong doing. Don't count yer chickens just yet.
But when a federal Investigation turns up something entirely different I wonder if some might say oops I guess we were wrong they had been doing things not according to Hoyle. LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Anybody at any time can CLAIM that they are doing things legally. Well Nobody in there right mind would ADMIT something of wrong doing. Don't count yer chickens just yet.
> But when a federal Investigation turns up something entirely different I wonder if some might say oops I guess we were wrong they had been doing things not according to Hoyle. LOL


Why would you pretend the Govt doesn't already closely monitor these operations?

The only reason for "investigations" now is politics and publicity from the fake video.

If the video was real "proof" they wouldn't need anything else


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> Anybody at any time can CLAIM that they are doing things legally. Well Nobody in there right mind would ADMIT something of wrong doing.


What are you suggesting they did that was illegal?


----------



## JJ Grandits

Look, this is simple, all our loving liberal members, you are supporting the murder and dismemberment of babies. You can Blah, Blah Blah here, and you can Blah, Blah , Blah there, but the bottom line is that a child dies.

I feel so sorry for you. Seriously. I can not comprehend this total indifference to a child's life. What happened to you? You will collectively rant and rave about a man's ability to become, or at least identify himself as a women. You will Claim some sort of higher authority when protesting the display of a flag That celebrates States rights. You will openly advocate any and all forms of extreme leniency to violent criminals while having absolutely no problem with sucking a babies brains out so their organs can be sold off. You openly defend this practice so matter of factly that it makes me shiver. I can not express my true feelings or the curses you so rightly deserve for this crime against humanity you openly accept with no reservation. I have to stop now. Realizing that people of your nature inhabit my world makes me want to vomit.


----------



## Shine

The video discusses the killing of what would be, after a few more moments and most probably without assistance by medical personnel, a live birth. It further discusses the processes which are used to kill the child. So, maybe five minutes before this being is born, a "doctor" uses forceps and other implements to end the life of that being.

Who cares if PP is selling parts when the killing of an "almost child" is so heartlessly discussed.

This is like the government explaining collateral damage that kills indiscriminately...


----------



## Nevada

Shine said:


> The video discusses the killing of what would be, after a few more moments and most probably without assistance by medical personnel, a live birth.


Actually, harvesting tissue comes after the fact. They aren't doing the abortions to get tissue, the tissue just happens to be available. What would you prefer they do with it?


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> The video discusses the killing of what would be, after a few more moments and most probably without assistance by medical personnel, a live birth. It further discusses the processes which are used to kill the child. So, maybe five minutes before this being is born, a "doctor" uses forceps and other implements to end the life of that being.
> 
> Who cares if PP is selling parts when the killing of an "almost child" is so heartlessly discussed.
> 
> This is like the government explaining collateral damage that kills indiscriminately...


I think you are confused. No age was given for the fetuses. Somehow the makers of the video turned it into partial birth abortion and then late term abortions but that is not what was actually discussed.


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> Not really. There is no federal funding for abortions by law, so this issue is totally off the federal books.


Not directly perhaps. But here's the way I see it: Federal dollars are paying for the subsidies that pays for the insurance that pays for the abortion. IOW, w/o those federal subsidies, no insurance, no abortion. 

To claim that one taxpayer dollar is somehow kept separate from other federal dollars is nothing but a magnificent lie. 

Gruber was right.


----------



## po boy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Did you read past the headline?


Yep, and I am still LMAO!


----------



## Nevada

Txsteader said:


> Not directly perhaps. But here's the way I see it: Federal dollars are paying for the subsidies that pays for the insurance that pays for the abortion. IOW, w/o those federal subsidies, no insurance, no abortion.


I thought that Obamacare policies weren't allowed to cover abortions.


----------



## Shine

Nevada said:


> Actually, harvesting tissue comes after the fact. They aren't doing the abortions to get tissue, the tissue just happens to be available. What would you prefer they do with it?


But let me get this straight, without regarding the tissue donations from abortions, the people die of some other cause so that they're already dead or brain dead before the harvesting occurs correct? So here is an instance with regards to harvesting [I hate that term] where a living being is killed TO harvest their organs or tissue.

You must see that as being an evil happening - correct?


----------



## Nevada

Shine said:


> But let me get this straight, without regarding the tissue donations from abortions, the people die of some other cause so that they're already dead or brain dead before the harvesting occurs correct? So here is an instance with regards to harvesting [I hate that term] where a living being is killed TO harvest their organs or tissue.
> 
> You must see that as being an evil happening - correct?


The point is that the abortions will happen with or without tissue harvesting.

But I have no doubt that republicans will be holding hearings about this. It will generate the kind of press they want. The hearings promise to be full of terrific sound bytes to be played back on the news.


----------



## 7thswan

Patchouli said:


> I am saying this with absolute concern and kindness here: you are not making any sense. Maybe a break from the computer is a good idea?


You totaly know what I meen. Our government(the one we have now) promotes pieces of garbage like himself. Have you seen him in the prison today...he relates to the lowlife druggies because he is/was one of them. We knew that , but the left didn't listen or care. To the left, being a low life looser fraud is the Norm. You don't get it, our entire gov. will not address what a piece of garbage obama is because they KNEW and let it SLIDE to the distruction of OUR Home. Because he was black,??? he's just a lieing fake even if he has less than 7% black blood. He is no hero because the color of his skin, he is still a lieing criminal and NOONE has the spine to do/say anything about it.


----------



## Shine

...but, as long as the babies are being killed legally - you stand behind the process?


----------



## kasilofhome

Shine said:


> ...but, as long as the babies are being killed legally - you stand behind the process?


Just as long as not cat is speared thru... that bothers these same folks..... that is sick ...crushing human babies skull....free choice...and necessary.


----------



## Guest

Appalling the cavalier attitude of snuffing out the spark of life. I do not believe in any type of elective abortion, none, nada. I will not physically stand in the way of one's own choice, but I am allowed in my faith to form opinions. Those that chose to apply this form of birth termination and those that applaud and defend it I find contemptible. With the apparent leanings of the moderators of this thread I guess my voice is muted to a level of niceness so be it. If I believed in an actual hell, even at the damnation of my own soul, I would wish it upon those that take life with so little compassion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The video discusses the killing of what would be, after a few more moments and most probably without assistance by medical personnel, a live birth.


Why make up these fantasies?

Is it because emotional arguments are all you can come up with?

It's such statements that take away all credibility


----------



## gapeach

dlmcafee said:


> Appalling the cavalier attitude of snuffing out the spark of life. I do not believe in any type of elective abortion, none, nada. I will not physically stand in the way of one's own choice, but I am allowed in my faith to form opinions. Those that chose to apply this form of birth termination and those that applaud and defend it I find contemptible. With the apparent leanings of the moderators of this thread I guess my voice is muted to a level of niceness so be it. If I believed in an actual hell, even at the damnation of my own soul, I would wish it upon those that take life with so little compassion.


Sometimes you just have to back off. You are 100% right about those that chose to apply this form of birth termination and those that applaud and defend it I find contemptible. You are not alone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

7thswan said:


> Sheez, from wallmarts for like 4.00. So how is abortion ok. Kinda like you telling me I have a free ride home from the bar, but I'd rather drive and kill a family of four.


You can't get it without a prescription, so the cost is much more than $4


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You are 100% right about those that chose to apply this form of birth termination and those that applaud and defend it I find contemptible.


Accepting reality is neither "applauding" nor "defending"

You cannot control the world and force everyone to follow your beliefs.

Adults will accept that and learn to live with it


----------



## gibbsgirl

Nevada said:


> The point is that the abortions will happen with or without tissue harvesting.
> 
> But I have no doubt that republicans will be holding hearings about this. It will generate the kind of press they want. The hearings promise to be full of terrific sound bytes to be played back on the news.


I don't think it's a simple and innocent as that. If harvesting from the remains of the babies is being done simply because they were sslated to die anyway, I think that is a dangerous path for us to be walking.

The children Dr. Mengela experimented on in ww2 were slated to die also, but were experimented on and dissected alive and dead, because it was decided their lives were not as valuable as other humans.

That mindset didn't happen overnight. It was a long path to get there. And, I don't have blind faith that scientists and healthcare providers can steer safely away from that type of destination without a lot of oversight and public pressure.

The video is what it is. But, at least its release got a response demanding that this gets a closer look. And, even the pp handlers stuck a mic in front of that woman to have her acknowledge that the tone of that Dr was not representing sufficient compassion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> And, even the pp handlers stuck a mic in front of that woman to have her acknowledge that the tone of that Dr was not representing sufficient compassion.


If that statement is credible, then so is the one where she said the video was a set up, and no laws had been broken


----------



## Bearfootfarm

delete double post


----------



## Guest

gapeach said:


> Sometimes you just have to back off. You are 100% right about those that chose to apply this form of birth termination and those that applaud and defend it I find contemptible. You are not alone.


You are right and the one line rebuttals of an opinion start so as to stiffle it and strengthen their lack of feelings.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> You are right and the one line rebuttals of an opinion start so as to stiffle it and strengthen their lack of feelings.


It doesn't take a lot of rambling to simply stick to facts.
Your "feelings" won't change reality


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't take a lot of rambling to simply stick to facts.
> Your "feelings" won't change reality


If you feel like life revolves solely on facts good for you and your reality, for more times than not reality is nothing more than a matter of perception. Your facts change nothing they are only based on a past action, there is no future absolute fact.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> If you feel like life revolves solely on facts good for you and your reality, for more times than not reality is nothing more than a matter of perception. *Your facts change nothing *they are only based on a past action, there is no future absolute fact.


They don't have to change anything.
They simply are what they are, regardless of anyone's feelings


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why make up these fantasies?
> 
> Is it because emotional arguments are all you can come up with?
> 
> It's such statements that take away all credibility


I wish you well in your travel through this life but I sincerely think that you cannot be serious in this. Please describe what a Partial Birth Abortion is..


----------



## arabian knight

Shine said:


> I wish you well in your travel through this life but I sincerely think that you cannot be serious in this. Please describe what a Partial Birth Abortion is..


The real horror is that they stopped a beating heart in the first place,. These people on the left at times really make me sick. They sure don't think as to what they are doing that have been given God's gift to carry on His creation and to go forth and populate the earth do they?.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't have to change anything.
> They simply are what they are, regardless of anyone's feelings


Yep. That is why you fight and criticize feelings and beliefs, they are so much more powerful and effective for change, your facts will not change it one jot or tittle.


----------



## Tricky Grama

kasilofhome said:


> Although Nucatola thought she was speaking to buyers from a biological company, she was actually meeting with actors working for an organization called the Center for Medical Progress â
> 
> 
> Why did she accept a meeting with BUYERS?
> What items did they wish to get a quote as to established price range.
> 
> Hearts, lungs, limbs,livers heads.....


So funny, huh. It is a felony to sell fetal parts. So why isn't this monster doc speaking to Donor Accepters? No, It's speaking to BUYERS.


----------



## Nevada

Tricky Grama said:


> It is a felony to sell fetal parts.


No, you can't sell body parts for a profit. They're only asking for expenses.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> No thank you. It makes me nauseous. :yuck:


Yes, I agree.

The term if you are ill, is "makes me nauseated".


----------



## gibbsgirl

Tricky Grama said:


> So funny, huh. It is a felony to sell fetal parts. So why isn't this monster doc speaking to Donor Accepters? No, It's speaking to BUYERS.


That's why this video is important. It's not likely to change the sides from prolife or prochoice.

But, it is shining a light on the murky line between organ donating and organ trafficking. And, a lot of people on either side of abortion do not support organ trafficking.

I don't want to personally ignore looking at that when someone tries to bring it forward.


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> No, you can't sell body parts for a profit. They're only asking for expenses.


So you are saying if you supply a product without a profit it is not a sale? Is that defined somewhere in your law where I may read it? Might come in handy when selling these dang chicken eggs to legally avoid collecting sales tax...


----------



## kasilofhome

So, where did the shipping and handling fees get mentioned?
Is there a shipping rate for the lower forty eight.

People here that are claiming the fees are for shipping and handling MUST HAVE PROOF......surely they would not lie about the fact to claim that their is no profit, no sale price....no sale.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> Planned Parenthood claims that they aren't selling at a profit. Evidently that meets the letter of the law. If true, why the problem?


It is a felony TO SELL fetal parts. Nothing is said re selling for profit.


----------



## Tricky Grama

arabian knight said:


> Anybody at any time can CLAIM that they are doing things legally. Well Nobody in there right mind would ADMIT something of wrong doing. Don't count yer chickens just yet.
> But when a federal Investigation turns up something entirely different I wonder if some might say oops I guess we were wrong they had been doing things not according to Hoyle. LOL


No, they never do.
Like, who gives more, donates more?


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> But let me get this straight, without regarding the tissue donations from abortions, the people die of some other cause so that they're already dead or brain dead before the harvesting occurs correct? So here is an instance with regards to harvesting [I hate that term] where a living being is killed TO harvest their organs or tissue.
> 
> You must see that as being an evil happening - correct?


They aren't being killed for their organs or tissue. It's just the by product of an abortion.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Nevada said:


> I've listened to the videos. There was frank discussion, but tissue collection isn't a pretty thing. A lot of medicine is like that, but it doesn't make it wrong. Someone has to collect tissue for transplants and research. Like major trauma, there's really no good way to sugarcoat the topic.


Maybe you have seen tissue collections...I have, nothing vile about it at all. Some who are not medical folks might become nauseated but the subject of this thread is selling fetal BODY parts. Do you have any idea how that differs from "tissue collection".
Well, the abortion doc inserts a forcepts and the fetus VISABLY moves away, but, hey, no where to go...& snap-off comes an arm, then crush goes a head. The rest of the fetal body, I mean tissue, is pulled. 
Science has told us if this unborn baby is 20 wks gestation, he can feel pain. 

Hey, no problem, can't live on his own yet. Nor can he breathe, having had his head crushed b4 being born.


----------



## Woolieface

I have to ask...if these babies are not nearly full term, what use would their undeveloped organs be?


----------



## kasilofhome

Biohazard shipping containers start at 135 dollars per unit from..... opticPlanet.com

So. If the required container for biohazard specimen container ....not including shipping and handling is greater..... than what ....without any proof is shipping cost it is not adding up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Yep. That is why you fight and criticize feelings and beliefs, they are so much more powerful and effective for change, your facts will not change it one jot or tittle.


I'm not fighting nor criticizing feelings.
I'm telling you they have nothing to do with whether or not abortions are legal.

Don't keep looking for hidden meanings in what I say.
Just read the words


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I wish you well in your travel through this life but I sincerely think that you cannot be serious in this. * Please describe what a Partial Birth Abortion is..*


A Partial Birth Abortion is a procedure that has been illegal for over a decade, and has nothing to do with the OP topic. 

You're using it as an emotional diversion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act



> This statute prohibits a method of abortion that it names "partial birth abortion". The procedure described in the statute is usually used in the second trimester,[3] from 15 to 26 weeks, some of which occur before and some of which occur after viability.
> 
> The law itself contains no reference to gestational age or viability. The present statute is directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion.[4]


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> So funny, huh. It is a felony to sell fetal parts. So why isn't this monster doc speaking to *Donor Accepters*? No, It's speaking to *BUYERS*.



That's the term used by the makers of the video, who are admitted liars.

We have no idea exactly how they represented themselves to PP other than what those same liars said in their propaganda.

Their own transcript also refers to them as "Two actors posing as Fetal Tissue Procurement Company ", which is perfectly legal, but then switches to the term "Buyers" to fan the flames.

PP wasn't aware of the video nor any transcripts, so they had no knowledge of the misleading terms used.

As far as the Dr knew, she WAS talking to "Donor Accepters" (sic)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Biohazard shipping containers start at 135 dollars per unit from..... opticPlanet.com
> 
> So. If the required container for biohazard specimen container ....not including shipping and handling is greater..... than what ....without any proof is shipping cost it is not adding up.


Do you seriously think a medical facility pays full retail and buys one unit at a time?

Do you also think they would just call Fed-Ex to transport the samples?

Those things are what any payments received are for, and not for a profit.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> The video discusses the killing of what would be, after a few more moments and most probably without assistance by medical personnel, a live birth. It further discusses the processes which are used to kill the child. So, maybe five minutes before this being is born, a "doctor" uses forceps and other implements to end the life of that being.
> 
> Who cares if PP is selling parts when the killing of an "almost child" is so heartlessly discussed.
> 
> This is like the government explaining collateral damage that kills indiscriminately...





Tricky Grama said:


> So funny, huh. It is a felony to sell fetal parts. So why isn't this monster doc speaking to Donor Accepters? No, It's speaking to BUYERS.





Tricky Grama said:


> Maybe you have seen tissue collections...I have, nothing vile about it at all. Some who are not medical folks might become nauseated but the subject of this thread is selling fetal BODY parts. Do you have any idea how that differs from "tissue collection".
> Well, the abortion doc inserts a forcepts and the fetus VISABLY moves away, but, hey, no where to go...& snap-off comes an arm, then crush goes a head. The rest of the fetal body, I mean tissue, is pulled.
> Science has told us if this unborn baby is 20 wks gestation, he can feel pain.
> 
> Hey, no problem, can't live on his own yet. Nor can he breathe, having had his head crushed b4 being born.





Woolieface said:


> I have to ask...if these babies are not nearly full term, what use would their undeveloped organs be?


Please, any or all of you, provide a quote from the PDF of the video transcript that indicates exactly where it says that PP is selling anything. 

Can you also quote the part of the transcript where any gestational age is given, please? Late term abortion is illegal in most US states, all but nine and DC have a set gestational end age.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html?_r=1&

The "babies" are not "nearly full term" no gestational age is given, but the tissue is used for research. 

*The bottom line is: if you don't believe in abortion don't have one. Abortion has been legal for over 40 years, and you have no right to tell anyone what they can and can't do with their body. Have a wonderful day. *


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Not directly perhaps. But here's the way I see it: Federal dollars are paying for the subsidies that pays for the insurance that pays for the abortion. IOW, w/o those federal subsidies, no insurance, no abortion.
> 
> To claim that one taxpayer dollar is somehow kept separate from other federal dollars is nothing but a magnificent lie.
> 
> Gruber was right.





Nevada said:


> I thought that Obamacare policies weren't allowed to cover abortions.


Someone must get a mite dizzy from all that spinning.  

Nevada is right on both counts- PP does not use federal funding for abortions, it's used to provide sexual heath care, cancer screening, and birth control for the most part. And Obama care (with it's federal funding) doesn't provide for abortion either. 

I'm being to think that Gruber is referenced specifically when conservatives are backed against a wall with their lies and half truths. A point to ponder, eh?


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> I thought that Obamacare policies weren't allowed to cover abortions.


http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...d-abortion-genevieve-c-plaster-arina-o-grossu
http://www.worldmag.com/2014/10/churches_sue_california_over_abortion_coverage_mandate
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/04/27/...nue-battling-state-mandate-to-fund-abortions/
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/gao-report-obamacare-abortion-rules-ignored-110990.html
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/04/15/3426742/obamacare-abortion-coverage-transparency/


----------



## FarmerKat

Woolieface said:


> I have to ask...if these babies are not nearly full term, what use would their undeveloped organs be?


Certain medications and vaccines are produced using fetal tissue. The vaccine makers claim that the tissue is from two babies aborted years ago and that these children were not killed to obtain the tissue, they would have been aborted anyway. I have no idea where the tissue for medications like Enbrel came from. 

Partial birth abortions are illegal but late term abortions are not. Partial birth definition: 



> An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)


So as long as the baby is still completely in the womb, it is legal to kill it. Many states do have laws banning late term abortions (and these have been upheld as long as they have an exception for mother's health). However, not all states. For those that don't know what a baby looks like at 20 week gestation, I suggest you google it. How can anyone possibly say that it is okay to take forceps and tear this child apart? 

I am opposed to any abortions - no exceptions. Situations where it is a life or death situation for the mother are extremely rare. If my child ran in front of a bus and I could save him/her by diving in front of the bus myself and dying in the process, I would not hesitate for a split second - I would want my child to live. So what is there to decide about - the father, family members or adoptive parents can raise the child. It may not be the perfect life one imagined for their child but it sure is better than being dead. 

As for the numbers (since it appears each side has their own because there is no reliable independent source), how can anyone justify that thinking that "oh, it's only a few hundred thousand murdered babies, not millions - so it is good". Even one murdered child is one too many. 

I don't care if PP is selling or donating body parts of murdered babies - they (and other abortion organization) need to stop killing the children in the first place.


----------



## Oxankle

If the monsters who perform abortions, and those equally horrid monsters who support the abortionists were themselves "aborted" we'd have criminal investigators all over the place. 

Nature is not mocked; those who abort, and those who support them, will in time be paid in kind.


----------



## Patchouli

It just blows my mind how much misinformation there is out there. You would think what with pro-lifers being Christians and all they would make some effort not to spread lie piled on top of lie stirred up with a whole pot full of obfuscation and misinterpretations and distortions.

This was a case of 2 liars going to a doctor and sitting there for 2 hours trying their hardest to bait her into saying something they could use to fuel the outrage machine. To those out here living in reality who know anything at all about the science of tissue donation and research they got nothing. To the masses who hate abortion they didn't even need to bother. Wave a red flag and yell these people are evil and you can get all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth you could possibly hope for.

There is no hope for this country when we can't have a rational, adult conversation about anything.


----------



## Woolieface

FarmerKat said:


> Certain medications and vaccines are produced using fetal tissue. The vaccine makers claim that the tissue is from two babies aborted years ago and that these children were not killed to obtain the tissue, they would have been aborted anyway. I have no idea where the tissue for medications like Enbrel came from.


Yep, there was a thread on that. The whole practice of using dead babies in pharmaceuticals makes me consider that the fabled "zombie apocalypse" has actually been going on for some time.


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> It just blows my mind how much misinformation there is out there. You would think what with pro-lifers being Christians and all they would make some effort not to spread lie piled on top of lie stirred up with a whole pot full of obfuscation and misinterpretations and distortions.
> 
> This was a case of 2 liars going to a doctor and sitting there for 2 hours trying their hardest to bait her into saying something they could use to fuel the outrage machine. To those out here living in reality who know anything at all about the science of tissue donation and research they got nothing. To the masses who hate abortion they didn't even need to bother. Wave a red flag and yell these people are evil and you can get all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth you could possibly hope for.
> 
> There is no hope for this country when we can't have a rational, adult conversation about anything.


You know, if no one ever made a dime off of any of it, It would not change my opinion of this woman describing the horrific death of an unborn infant in a way to preserve their interest in its body parts. There really isn't another descriptive word more fitting than "evil".


----------



## Guest

Calling someone a liar for conducting an investigation in a covert capacity is amusing. I think I will agree so maybe this thinking can grow and spread. Just think all government covert, undercover operations can be found invalid because they are lies... I like your thinking...


----------



## Guest

"all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth"

Don't you love the biblical expression of grief. It shows compassion, those that have none find it disturbing I guess.


----------



## Woolieface

dlmcafee said:


> "all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth"
> 
> Don't you love the biblical expression of grief. It shows compassion, those that have none find it disturbing I guess.


Do these expressions constitute patronizing us with our own beliefs?


----------



## Guest

Woolieface said:


> Do these expressions constitute patronizing us with our own beliefs?


I would think so but I doubt the mods would, you know what I mean.


----------



## gapeach

Two of my grown children were adopted by my husband and me when they were babies after 5 yrs of trying to have a baby. They are 2 of the most anti-abortion people that I know. I thank God that their birth mothers gave them life. They do too.


----------



## painterswife

Oxankle said:


> If the monsters who perform abortions, and those equally horrid monsters who support the abortionists were themselves "aborted" we'd have criminal investigators all over the place.
> 
> Nature is not mocked; those who abort, and those who support them, will in time be paid in kind.


My Christian family would say, Everyone is a sinner and God will forgive you if you repent. They would never say, you will get yours.


----------



## Txsteader

I'll post this again, perhaps it will sink in this time. Emphasis mine.


> PP: I think for *affiliates*, at the end of the day,
> they&#8217;re a nonprofit, they just
> don&#8217;t want to
> &#8212;
> they want to break even. *And if they can do a little better **than break even,* and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they&#8217;re happy
> to do that.


If you're doing better than breaking even, you're making a profit. No other way to interpret that.

And she's referring to PP affiliates.


----------



## hippygirl

OK, here's the way I see it...


 "Fetal tissue" is available, via abortion, for "fill-in-the-blank" (whatever your conscience or lack thereof demands).
 Lab/researcher has need of fetal tissue.
 Lab/researcher approaches person/organization in possession of or with access to fetal tissue in order to acquire it.
 Person/organization is willing to part with fetal tissue via the exchange of money, supposedly in an effort to reduce/eliminate expenses.
 So let's stop right there for a moment...

Now, if the clinic that performed the abortion was compensated in any way FOR THE ABORTION ITSELF, then that fetal tissue is nothing more than medical waste and the only remaining cost to that clinic would be the disposal of said waste, right?


 ACCOUNTING 101...if you reduce/eliminate an expense, do you not increase your bottom line?
...and what is another name for that "bottom line"? That right...if it's "in the black", it's commonly referred to as PROFIT, or if it's "in the red", a LOSS.

Here's what gets me about those of you who keep harping on and on about whether or not there's a "profit" being made...IT. DOES. NOT. MATTER whether those in possession of or who have access to the fetal tissue are accepting money for purposes of making a profit or recouping expenses...MONEY IS TO BE EXCHANGED FOR THE FETAL TISSUE THAT WAS _*EXTRACTED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO RENDER THAT MEDICAL WASTE "USEABLE" BY A PARTICULAR MARKET*_.

Furthermore, calling the person/s who made the video "liars" because they misrepresented themselves as legit buyers CHANGES NOTHING..the conversation took place and the woman with whom they met said what she said, believing the videographers to be legit.


----------



## kasilofhome

urrent through Pub. L. 114-19. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) Purchase of tissue
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
(b) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and&#8212;
(1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
(2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
(3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
(c) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes
It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to&#8212;
(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
(d) Criminal penalties for violations
(1) In general
Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall be fined in accordance with title 18, subject to paragraph (2), or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
(2) Penalties applicable to persons receiving consideration
With respect to the imposition of a fine under paragraph (1), if the person involved violates subsection (a) or (b)(3), a fine shall be imposed in an amount not less than twice the amount of the valuable consideration received.
(e) Definitions
For purposes of this section:
(1) The term &#8220;human fetal tissue&#8221; has the meaning given such term in section 289g&#8211;1 (g) of this title.
(2) The term &#8220;interstate commerce&#8221; has the meaning given such term in section 321 (b) of title 21.
(3) The term &#8220;valuable consideration&#8221; does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.


----------



## Evons hubby

hippygirl said:


> MONEY IS TO BE EXCHANGED FOR THE FETAL TISSUE THAT WAS _*EXTRACTED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO RENDER THAT MEDICAL WASTE "USEABLE" BY A PARTICULAR MARKET*_.


Putting it in all caps really doesnt change the facts. Fetal tissue is not being exchanged for money. services are being provided and that is what is being charged for, in most industries its called "shipping and handling" charges. Someone has to provide the containers, and make sure they are transported from point a to point b.... this is not something that just magically happens, it has to be paid for by someone.


----------



## kasilofhome

So, where in the video did they mention the money was for shipping and handling? ..

Yep NOW pro killers are stating that as it is the exemption provided I see.

As of yet p.o. is not claiming shipping and handling fees.


----------



## FarmerKat

Patchouli said:


> This was a case of 2 liars going to a doctor and sitting there for 2 hours trying their hardest to bait her into saying something they could use to fuel the outrage machine.


I am quoting this post but there have been similar statements made throughout this thread. This is in response to the sentiment that the video is invalid because the people filming it were really not planning to buy anything from PP ...

I assume that those of you that feel that way, also feel that these people who called the Sweet Cakes bakery to order cakes for made up situations are liars as well and are just doing it to fuel the outrage, right? http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> (3) The term &#8220;valuable consideration&#8221; does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.


Just to toss a number out.... somewhere between 30 and 100 dollars per specimen.....


----------



## hippygirl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Putting it in all caps really doesnt change the facts. _*Fetal tissue is not being exchanged for money. services are being provided and that is what is being charged for, in most industries its called "shipping and handling" charges.*_ Someone has to provide the containers, and make sure they are transported from point a to point b.... this is not something that just magically happens, it has to be paid for by someone.


Splitting hairs there, aren't you?

Kind of reminds me of eBay sellers who used to sell a $25 t-shirt for a dollar and then charge $24 for shipping/handling.


----------



## Irish Pixie

hippygirl said:


> Splitting hairs there, aren't you?
> 
> Kind of reminds me of eBay sellers who used to sell a $25 t-shirt for a dollar and then charge $24 for shipping/handling.


You realize that your example is actually selling something, right? 

Price + shipping and handling = sale. Free + shipping and handling = free, you pay shipping and handling.


----------



## Evons hubby

hippygirl said:


> Splitting hairs there, aren't you?
> 
> Kind of reminds me of eBay sellers who used to sell a $25 t-shirt for a dollar and then charge $24 for shipping/handling.


Its not I who is "splitting hairs" here.... Do you realistically think you could provide the necessary packaging required to ship a donated organ in good condition to its destination for less than 30 bucks? The ones splitting hairs here are those who are trying to turn those very small fees into a "sales price". Just so you know, I am as apposed to abortion as anyone... but since it is legal at this time, I see no reason not to make the best of a bad situation and get those organs to the people who can use them.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> My Christian family would say, Everyone is a sinner and God will forgive you *if you repent*.


That's correct....


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> You realize that your example is actually selling something, right?
> 
> Price + shipping and handling = sale. Free + shipping and handling = free, you pay shipping and handling.


Why would you defend this?
I'm just curious, doesn't it seem horrible to you, this baby parts business?
Am I seeing this wrong?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Why would you defend this?
> I'm just curious, doesn't it seem horrible to you, this baby parts business?
> Am I seeing this wrong?


You are seeing this exactly how _you_ want to see it. 

I must like banging my head against a brick wall. Sigh. OK. Abortion is legal, right? The fetal tissue is a product of a legal procedure, correct? Why shouldn't it be used for something constructive? 

Don't start on the morals, please. Just don't. I sleep fine at night, and really I don't care what your opinion of me is.


----------



## gibbsgirl

The idea that some people are so casual about an aborted child's remains being medical waste bothers me a lot. Also, the idea that it's fine for business people, medical people and scientists to have such access to the remains of the person for whatever studies they see fit to use them for. It's not the same as being more ethically conscious of respect for the dead and asking if their kin would allow their organs to be donated to try and save a life in a transplant.

This is just a very slippery slope, and i'm not comfortable with how it's being handled. This has stopped being making a gift of a tragedy to bring a miracle and become supply and demand. Not everyone involved is trying to do evil.

But, this system is creating a precedent and a foot in the door for people who want to do very horrible things, even worse than just abortions.

I can easily see how there are likely business people who will eventually, if not already, pursue working relationships with care facilities for ill people with mental disabilities, or dementia. They will package it nicely, saying they will simply donate burial services for indigent I'll patients if they are allowed to harvest the remains for useabke medical waste. Facilities will end up accepting more indigent patients, perhaps they will be more likely to let people have hospice care too early because it's good business to have more bodies for harvesting. Perhaps they will withhold hospice too late because their partner labs want more bodies that are in a more advanced stage of illness.

They will make the books look legit. They will have or say that the research is helping save lives. They will claim that there's nothing wrong happening because these poor people were too poor to afford the help they received, so that justifies their sacrifice of their remains to science. And, the people who die and are harvested will have no voice like aborted children.

This is the path we are walking when we can't even n have n open discussion that allows for the idea that it is absolutely appropriate that the whole abortion system, good, bad, and ugly, needs lots and lots of coverage publicly.


----------



## hippygirl

Irish Pixie said:


> You realize that your example is actually selling something, right?
> 
> _*Price + shipping and handling = sale. Free + shipping and handling = free, you pay shipping and handling.*_


No, in the case of the eBay seller, $1 + s/h - the combined cost of the t-shirt and actual s/h - eBay fees = profit.

So if I, as someone in possession of or who has access to fetal tissue, enters into an agreement to provide you, someone who has need of fetal tissue for whatever reason, with that fetal tissue for $$$ shipping/handling, but the actual cost of that shipping/handling is only $$, then I've made money in the amount of $.

Now, you can choose NOT to call that profit if that's what make your toes tingle and that's fine with me, but the bottom line is that I put money in my "pocket" as a result of that transaction.

Now, if a lab pays for/provides the containers and pays a third party for the cost of shipping, thereby insuring no money ever crosses the palms of any person/clinic/organization in possession of or with access to the fetal tissue, then yes, I'll concede the fetal tissue was freely given and no profit was made...but I suspect that's not the case and neither you nor I can prove it one way or the other.


----------



## painterswife

Very few people are casual about abortion. Especially the women who has one. Just because you don't know each individual's persons situation or limits does not mean you can lump them all into some bucket of uncaring people.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Just to toss a number out.... somewhere between 30 and 100 dollars per specimen.....


Nope does not work as yes money was mentioned... and a bit more is better....where did it apply that dollar amount ....without putting words in the salad eaters mouth that that's a shipping costs......

Facts


----------



## painterswife

hippygirl said:


> No, in the case of the eBay seller, $1 + s/h - the combined cost of the t-shirt and actual s/h - eBay fees = profit.
> 
> So if I, as someone in possession of or who has access to fetal tissue, enters into an agreement to provide you, someone who has need of fetal tissue for whatever reason, with that fetal tissue for $$$ shipping/handling, but the actual cost of that shipping/handling is only $$, then I've made money in the amount of $.
> 
> Now, you can choose NOT to call that profit if that's what make your toes tingle and that's fine with me, but the bottom line is that I put money in my "pocket" as a result of that transaction.
> 
> Now, if a lab pays for/provides the containers and pays a third party for the cost of shipping, thereby insuring no money ever crosses the palms of any person/clinic/organization in possession of or with access to the fetal tissue, then yes, I'll concede the fetal tissue was freely given and no profit was made...but I suspect that's not the case and neither you nor I can prove it one way or the other.


Just because you want to believe that this is a sale of fetus parts does not make it so.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Very few people are casual about abortion. Especially the women who has one. Just because you don't know each individual's persons situation or limits does not mean you can lump them all into some bucket of uncaring people.


Taking a cautious and thoughtful attitude about something is not about lumping all people onto a bucket. It's about wanting to protect as many people as possible from those that would do them harm.

Our laws that define crimes, don't exist because the lawmakers felt everyone had to be stopped from doing wrong. Crimes are made illegal to deal with the few that would do harm to others.


----------



## Irish Pixie

hippygirl said:


> No, in the case of the eBay seller, $1 + s/h - the combined cost of the t-shirt and actual s/h - eBay fees = profit.
> 
> So if I, as someone in possession of or who has access to fetal tissue, enters into an agreement to provide you, someone who has need of fetal tissue for whatever reason, with that fetal tissue for $$$ shipping/handling, but the actual cost of that shipping/handling is only $$, then I've made money in the amount of $.
> 
> Now, you can choose NOT to call that profit if that's what make your toes tingle and that's fine with me, but the bottom line is that I put money in my "pocket" as a result of that transaction.
> 
> Now, if a lab pays for/provides the containers and pays a third party for the cost of shipping, thereby insuring no money ever crosses the palms of any person/clinic/organization in possession of or with access to the fetal tissue, then yes, I'll concede the fetal tissue was freely given and no profit was made...but I suspect that's not the case and neither you nor I can prove it one way or the other.


So, it should actually cost a _non-profit organization_ to ship and package something that will be used for research? Is that what you're saying?


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Its not I who is "splitting hairs" here.... Do you realistically think you could provide the necessary packaging required to ship a donated organ in good condition to its destination for less than 30 bucks? The ones splitting hairs here are those who are trying to turn those very small fees into a "sales price". Just so you know, I am as apposed to abortion as anyone... but since it is legal at this time, I see no reason not to make the best of a bad situation and get those organs to the people who can use them.




Laws require the sender of bio hazard of human tissue to provide the shipping containers per shipping requirements... so in seeking legal containers. The contain I could find legal and cheapest was 139 dollars... thus even the hundred dollars does not make sense.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> Taking a cautious and thoughtful attitude about something is not about lumping all people onto a bucket. It's about wanting to protect as many people as possible from those that would do them harm.
> 
> Our laws that define crimes, don't exist because the lawmakers felt everyone had to be stopped from doing wrong. Crimes are made illegal to deal with the few that would do harm to others.


Abortion is not a crime.


----------



## arabian knight

Even IF there was no actual Cash Exchanged, doesn't change the FACT that a exchange of "In Kind Services" were received, and THAT IS the SAME as Cash. No matter how you slice it they got Compensated one way or another. Period.


----------



## arabian knight

I many states after 20 weeks IT IS..


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> Even IF there was no actual Cash Exchanged, doesn't change the FACT that a exchange of "In Kind Services" were received, and THAT IS the SAME as Cash. No matter how you slice it they got Compensated one way or another. Period.


Nope. Just nope. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Period.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> Even IF there was no actual Cash Exchanged, doesn't change the FACT that a exchange of "In Kind Services" were received, and THAT IS the SAME as Cash. No matter how you slice it they got Compensated one way or another. Period.


Compensated for the costs of preparing and transportation. It takes time and effort to make sure that science can use those tissues.


----------



## arabian knight

*Rand Paul to mount fight to defund Planned Parenthood*


> âI am more appalled than ever by Planned Parenthoodâs complete disregard for the sanctity of human life,â Mr. Paul said. âThe recent revelation that this taxpayer-funded organization is selling body parts of the unborn further proves that this agency deserves our scorn, not our tax dollars.
> 
> âI plan to do whatever I can to stop them and will introduce an amendment to pending Senate *legislation to immediately strip every dollar of Planned Parenthood funding*,â he said.




Read more: 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ight-defund-planned-parenthood/#ixzz3gAfmGd3R


----------



## arabian knight

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. Just nope. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Period.


Then you do not know what government agencies consider as 'In Kind Services'. But I do LOL
No Cash has to be exchanged just something of VALUE received in this case fetus parts. And those 'In Kind Services' are treated as CASH.
Oh My


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> You are seeing this exactly how _you_ want to see it.
> 
> I must like banging my head against a brick wall. Sigh. OK. Abortion is legal, right? The fetal tissue is a product of a legal procedure, correct? Why shouldn't it be used for something constructive?
> 
> Don't start on the morals, please. Just don't. I sleep fine at night, and really I don't care what your opinion of me is.


It's legal..that's why you support and defend it?
Or do you believe in it?
Do you believe it's a good thing?


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Very few people are casual about abortion. Especially the women who has one. Just because you don't know each individual's persons situation or limits does not mean you can lump them all into some bucket of uncaring people.


And just because someone is horrified by the murder and sale of babies, should you lump them all into one bucket?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> It's legal..that's why you support and defend it?
> Or do you believe in it?
> Do you believe it's a good thing?


Oh. You're asking my personal belief on abortion? I believe a woman can do anything she wants with her body. Her body, her choice. 

I believe it can be a good thing, it depends on the woman and her situation.


----------



## FutureFarm

So when does the person who is having their limbs ripped off get to make their choice? It seems that abortion denies a person their most fundamental liberties. I don't see how anyone can support a persons right to choose while denying a person their right to life.


----------



## Nevada

FutureFarm said:


> So when does the person who is having their limbs ripped off get to make their choice? It seems that abortion denies a person their most fundamental liberties. I don't see how anyone can support a persons right to choose while denying a person their right to life.


The Supreme Court already heard arguments about that in Roe v Wade. This from the decision:
_
In the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was more safe than childbirth, the Court left the decision to abort completely to the woman and her physician._
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade


----------



## FutureFarm

And they heard arguments in the Dred Scott case. Gladly, that decision was overturned. Hopefully this one will be overturned too. 
It makes me sick that in a country that celebrates freedom to marry whoever you want, the rights, and lives, of the most helpless are snuffed out for convenience.


----------



## Nevada

FutureFarm said:


> And they heard arguments in the Dred Scott case. Gladly, that decision was overturned.


Dred Scott was not overturned. The decision was rendered moot by constitutional amendment. The Dred Scott decision was considered to be proper under the constitution, as it existed at the time.


----------



## FutureFarm

Superseded. Corrected. Justice was served.


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> Calling someone a liar for conducting an investigation in a covert capacity is amusing. I think I will agree so maybe this thinking can grow and spread. Just think all government covert, undercover operations can be found invalid because they are lies... I like your thinking...


If your cause is true and just lying should not be required should it? And they weren't just liars because they told the Doctor they were someone they were not. They were liars because they edited her words to make it appear she said something she did not. They are liars and so is everyone else who spreads falsehoods about abortions in order to make it seem more evil or more outrageous. There are lies perpetuated right here in this thread. Maybe they are spread through ignorance but that does not make them any less untrue and therefore lies. 

For people supposedly following a God who lists lies as one of the things he hates I am seeing awful lot of lies on a wide variety of subjects. Christians might want to consider the fact that they will be judged for every word they speak. I am going to guess that includes typing too. Seems to me it would behoove them to be absolutely certain they actually type truth and not lies don't you think?


----------



## FutureFarm

Take all religion out of it. Does or does not abortion deny a human the right to life?


----------



## Txsteader

Patchouli said:


> They were liars because they edited her words to make it appear she said something she did not. They are liars and so is everyone else who spreads falsehoods about abortions in order to make it seem more evil or more outrageous. There are lies perpetuated right here in this thread.





> *And if they can do a little better **than break even,* and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they&#8217;re happy
> to do that.


That's not a lie, that's a direct quote from the transcript.

Would you like to take a shot at explaining how those words don't mean she was talking about making a profit?


----------



## hippygirl

painterswife said:


> Just because you want to believe that this is a sale of fetus parts does not make it so.


That's true, but until someone proves differently, 1+1 will always equal 2 regardless of who's doing the math.


----------



## painterswife

hippygirl said:


> That's true, but until someone proves differently, 1+1 will always equal 2 regardless of who's doing the math.


All ready proven. No one has gone to jail. If that video is any kind of proof they would have rushed it to the police.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> That's not a lie, that's a direct quote from the transcript.
> 
> Would you like to take a shot at explaining how those words don't mean she was talking about making a profit?


You can repeat this until the cows come home but that doesn't change the fact that fact that fetal tissue was not sold, and that it's perfectly legal to donate it for medical research.


----------



## Patchouli

Txsteader said:


> That's not a lie, that's a direct quote from the transcript.
> 
> Would you like to take a shot at explaining how those words don't mean she was talking about making a profit?


Link and context please. Oh forget it I found it myself. Your source yanked it out of context and turned it into a lie. 

So let's try this in context shall we? First Dr. Nucatola is very, very clear there is no selling and no profit being made even though the actor/buyer tries very hard to lead her into saying there is:




> Buyer [ACTOR]: Ok. I'm just trying to brainstorm. Because, I think offering some people, not only, just offsetting their cost in other areas, seeing the potential for that, besides the potential, for the patient, I'm still going down that road, even though I know, I understand what you're saying. This cannot be seen as, "We're doing this for profit."
> 
> 
> PP [NUCATOLA]: No. Nothing, no affiliate should be doing anything that's not like, reasonable and customary. *This is not- nobody should be "selling" tissue. That's just not the goal here.
> 
> 
> *


Second your little snippet in context:




> ACTOR: Okay, so, when you are, or the affiliate is determining what that monetary --
> NUCATOLA: Yes.
> ACTOR: So that it doesn't raise any question of this is what it's about, this is the main -- what - what price range would you --
> NUCATOLA: You know, I'm -- I could throw a number out that's anywhere from $30 to $100 depending on the facility, and what's involved. It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there that's going to be doing everything, or is their staff going to be doing it? What exactly are they going to be doing? Is there shipping involved, is somebody coming to pick it up -- so, I think everybody just wants to -- it's really just about if anyone were ever to ask them, well what do you do for this $60, how can you justify that? Or are you basically just doing something completely egregious, that you should be doing for free. So it just needs to be justifiable.
> And, look, we have 67 affiliates. They all have different practice environments, very different staff, and so with that number --
> ACTOR: Did you say 67?
> NUCATOLA: 67.
> ACTOR: Okay. And so of that number, how much would personality of the personnel in there, would play into it as far as how we're speaking to them --
> NUCATOLA: *I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they're a non-profit, they just don't want to -- they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they're happy to do that. Really their bottom line is, they just, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn't get otherwise.*



She is talking about breaking even for the clinic as a whole. In order for the clinic to break even covering the costs of low income or destitute patients for ALL of the services they provide they may need a little more from whatever service they can get paid for. In this case they charge the top end of the scale price for the lab tissue. The next clinic may charge nothing or less than it really costs them because the clinic is on a better footing. They may get more donations or have more clients who can pay for their services.

It is blatantly obvious read in context that there is no selling, there is no profit making there is only donation and cost recouping. And that is in spite of the fact the weaselly little liars try every way they can to goad her or lead her into saying it is selling for profit. If anything they make themselves look like idiots and prove the innocence of PP.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Sounds like an argument supermarkets would be very interested in supporting so they could start counting all their loss leader sales as donations instead of taxable sales income when they report profits and losses to the govt.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> All ready proven. No one has gone to jail. If that video is any kind of proof they would have rushed it to the police.


Not while the DOJ is ran by Obama's racists hate mongers


----------



## Txsteader

Patchouli said:


> Link and context please. Oh forget it I found it myself. *Your source yanked it out of context and turned it into a lie. *


*My* source???? That was taken from the link posted by either Pixie or PW earlier in this thread. 

:hysterical:

ETA: It was taken from PW's link to the transcript. Post #81


----------



## preparing

I'm ashamed. I just can't believe G-d allows us to go on.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> *My* source???? That was taken from the link posted by either Pixie or PW earlier in this thread.
> 
> :hysterical:


Which you took out of context to suit your agenda. :facepalm:

Patchouli has linked that portion of the conversation and even bolded it to help you. That was very nice of her.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Not while the DOJ is ran by Obama's racists hate mongers


Your obsession with Obama is not the topic.


----------



## Irish Pixie




----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Which you took out of context to suit your agenda. :facepalm:
> 
> Patchouli has linked that portion of the conversation and even bolded it to help you. That was very nice of her.


The good drs. words were......"*if they can *do a little better than breaking even, and do so in a way that *seems* reasonable, *they're happy to do that.*"

Why refuse to admit what she's saying???? Denial isn't going to make the words mean something different.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


>


Is it wrong for adults to get a job, support themselves? Or do you believe that the cord should only be cut when the parent dies....that people should remain in perpetual childhood/dependence?


----------



## Woolieface

preparing said:


> I'm ashamed. I just can't believe G-d allows us to go on.


The day is coming....


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> The good drs. words were......"*if they can *do a little better than breaking even, and do so in a way that *seems* reasonable, *they're happy to do that.*"
> 
> Why refuse to admit what she's saying???? Denial isn't going to make the words mean something different.


All the bolding in the world will never make it mean what you want it to. 

Yes, she said it, I thought that was obvious, how else would you be able to take it out of context to suit your agenda? Read the entire part of Dr. Nucatola's part of the conversation: "*I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they're a non-profit, they just don't want to -- they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they're happy to do that. Really their bottom line is, they just, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn't get otherwise.*"


----------



## Shine

I am glad that some on here noticed that Partial Birth Abortion is illegal. Just curious, what major difference is there between Late Term Abortion and Partial Birth Abortions?

Whether or not it is legal it is still killing a life form.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> All the bolding in the world will never make it mean what you want it to.
> 
> Yes, she said it, I thought that was obvious, how else would you be able to take it out of context to suit your agenda? Read the entire part of Dr. Nucatola's part of the conversation: "*I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they're a non-profit, they just don't want to -- they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they're happy to do that. Really their bottom line is, they just, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn't get otherwise.*"


Putting it in context doesn't change the meaning of her words. She's still saying the same thing.

:facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Putting it in context doesn't change the meaning of her words. She's still saying the same thing.
> 
> :facepalm:


I'm absolutely positively sure that it's the same to you. That's what you _want_ it to say. :hysterical:


----------



## Evons hubby

FutureFarm said:


> Take all religion out of it. Does or does not abortion deny a human the right to life?


In the same way the use of a condom, spermicide, IUD, taking the pill or abstinence prevents a human life. Different paths to the same village.


----------



## Woolieface

Shine said:


> I am glad that some on here noticed that Partial Birth Abortion is illegal. Just curious, what major difference is there between Late Term Abortion and Partial Birth Abortions?
> 
> Whether or not it is legal it is still killing a life form.


If I'm not mistaken, the only difference is that in partial birth abortion, the baby is delivered, except for the head, and the head is crushed while still in the birth canal. The reason it's done this way is because if the head emerges, THEN it's a human being and its murder (when this was legal). A late term abortion is simply the same baby at the same age killed while entirely still in its mother. 

Yeah...legality makes all the difference. Got your head out, you're golden. If none of that legal reasoning makes any sense to you, that's because it plain and simple doesn't make any.


----------



## Shine

The phrase "...it's a legal procedure" is starting to sound awfully similar to "...I was only doing my job". No one really wants to weigh all of the consequences and considerations, it's like they cover their eyes and proclaim that it's still dark outside...


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Nope does not work as yes money was mentioned... and a bit more is better....where did it apply that dollar amount ....without putting words in the salad eaters mouth that that's a shipping costs......
> 
> Facts


on the flipside, without putting words in the salad eaters mouth, where in the entire video did she say tissue or organs were for sale? She plainly stated that fetal tissue and organs were available via "donation", and mentioned that there were conditions that had to be met in order to provide those donated organs in a usable state. Unlike a tshirt that can be stuffed in a box and fedexed to its destination, living tissue needs to be shipped in a sterile, climate controled manner to prevent damage to the tissue. 

common sense


----------



## Woolieface

Shine said:


> The phrase "...it's a legal procedure" is starting to sound awfully similar to "...I was only doing my job". No one really wants to weigh all of the consequences and considerations, it's like they cover their eyes and proclaim that it's still dark outside...


Those are two of my most unfavorite excuses in the world...
"it was legal"
"it was my job"

Can't anyone ask themselves if it was_ right_?


----------



## gapeach

Woolieface said:


> If I'm not mistaken, the only difference is that in partial birth abortion, the baby is delivered, except for the head, and the head is crushed while still in the birth canal. The reason it's done this way is because if the head emerges, THEN it's a human being and its murder (when this was legal). A late term abortion is simply the same baby at the same age killed while entirely still in its mother.
> 
> Yeah...legality makes all the difference. Got your head out, you're golden. If none of that legal reasoning makes any sense to you, that's because it plain and simple doesn't make any.


That is murder and I don't care what anybody says. It may not be prosecutable but it is morally wrong.

Anybody who is contemplating that procedure should be required to watch a film of the procedure! That would vastly reduce the number of those kinds of abortions. It is inhumane.


----------



## Evons hubby

Woolieface said:


> Those are two of my most unfavorite excuses in the world...
> "it was legal"
> "it was my job"
> 
> *Can't anyone ask themselves if it was right?*


That decision has to be made by the mother to be.... not some meddling dogooder that will not be involved with the eventual job of providing a home and all the other needs for the child.


----------



## Woolieface

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That decision has to be made by the mother to be.... not some meddling dogooder that will not be involved with the eventual job of providing a home and all the other needs for the child.


The mother already made a decision prior to there being a separate human being inside of her.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> The mother already made a decision prior to there being a separate human being inside of her.


Thankfully, she isn't limited to just one decision...


----------



## Oxankle

So, Hubby; murder is fine if the mother decides to kill her child? If women do not want children there are ways, even for outright ----s, to avoid pregnancy. 

Even when married women are abandoned while pregnant there are ways of dealing with an unwelcome child that do not involve killing. Today there are thousands of people wanting to adopt. You can find "wanting a child" ads in any big city paper and even in this tiny burg. 

As for partial birth abortion, the killer turns the child for a breech birth so that the killing can take place before the birth is complete. A particularly sordid act. No one can defend such brutality.

Margaret Sanger, the head matron of Planned Parenthood, started her mission to eliminate the "human weeds" she considered blacks to be. Then the mission changed to simple murder for hire.

There have always been women who sought abortions--mistresses, prostitutes, women who simply did not want more children. Not long ago the English dug up an old brothel where the remains of many children were found buried "in the garden". 

Even in medieval and prehistoric times there were herbs and potions that induced abortion. Only recently has such butchery been so institutionalized that its advocates claim respectability.


----------



## painterswife

Oxankle said:


> So, Hubby; murder is fine if the mother decides to kill her child? If women do not want children there are ways, even for outright ----s, to avoid pregnancy.
> 
> Even when married women are abandoned while pregnant there are ways of dealing with an unwelcome child that do not involve killing. Today there are thousands of people wanting to adopt. You can find "wanting a child" ads in any big city paper and even in this tiny burg.
> 
> As for partial birth abortion, the killer turns the child for a breech birth so that the killing can take place before the birth is complete. A particularly sordid act. No one can defend such brutality.
> 
> Margaret Sanger, the head matron of Planned Parenthood, started her mission to eliminate the "human weeds" she considered blacks to be. Then the mission changed to simple murder for hire.
> 
> There have always been women who sought abortions--mistresses, prostitutes, women who simply did not want more children. Not long ago the English dug up an old brothel where the remains of many children were found buried "in the garden".
> 
> Even in medieval and prehistoric times there were herbs and potions that induced abortion. Only recently has such butchery been so institutionalized that its advocates claim respectability.


Why are there children begging to be adopted if we have enough people waiting to adopt? Solve that oroblem first.


----------



## gapeach

If a mother has a late term or partial birth abortion, why isn't she first counseled to give her child up for adoption? In today's world, a mother is able to pick the parents for her child and even to have a relationship with the child if she wants to. Isn't that so much better than killing the baby?

The father should have options also.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> Thankfully, she isn't limited to just one decision...


Right...there's that first decision she made and then there are the consequences that she had every reason to know might happen, and then there's her "choice" to kill the "consequences".


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> Right...there's that first decision she made and then there are the consequences that she had every reason to know might happen, and then there's her "choice" to kill the "consequences".


You had it right at "her choice".


----------



## Shine

...I keep saying: Abortion is primarily used by the irresponsible.

[Left off the entire list of words - irresponsible just touches the surface]


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> ...I keep saying: Abortion is primarily used by the irresponsible.


You are probably right.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> Why are there children begging to be adopted if we have enough people waiting to adopt? Solve that oroblem first.


Do you imagine those same children would beg to be spared if we decided to euthanize the "excess" kids in society?


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> You had it right at "her choice".


All moral decisions are a choice, whether legality comes into play or not.


----------



## Shine

Woolieface said:


> Do you imagine those same children would beg to be spared if we decided to euthanize the "excess" kids in society?


...seems reasonable, if we can kill them inside the mother... why stop there? I can see another government panel that could make those decisions for us...

lol


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I am quoting this post but there have been similar statements made throughout this thread. This is in response to the sentiment that the video is invalid *because the people filming it were really not planning to buy anything *from PP


That's not true.

They represented themselves as being from a company that LEGALLY obtained tissue samples for third parties. There is no "buying" at all. That's not legal


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Laws require the sender of bio hazard of human tissue to provide the shipping containers per shipping requirements... so in seeking legal containers. The contain I could find legal and cheapest was 139 dollars... thus even the hundred dollars does not make sense.


You're still pretending they would buy containers one at a time from a retailer, and that they are "shipping" the samples at all.

If they provide their own transport, there is no third party "shipper" involved, and therefore many regulations simply don't apply


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> I many states after 20 weeks IT IS..


So where's the *proof* these were illegal abortions.
There are only insinuations and allegations, but no real facts


----------



## arabian knight

Does need prove, didn't say there was a list, just that any abortion that is preformed OVER 20 weeks will be against the law. Cool


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Does need prove, didn't say there was a list, just that any abortion that is preformed OVER 20 weeks will be against the law. Cool


Then it has nothing to do with the OP topic


----------



## arabian knight




----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by dlmcafee View Post
> Calling someone a liar for conducting an investigation in a covert capacity is amusing. I think I will agree so maybe this thinking can grow and spread. Just think all government covert, undercover operations can be found invalid because they are lies... I like your thinking...


The difference is the Govt pretends to be a lawbreaker, getting evidence on other law breakers

In this case they pretended to be a legal entity, and but got confirmation of no illegal acts.

But you knew that before you started, being a former LEO yourself


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> (giant baby picture


These huge pictures you like to post really screw things up for those with slower internet connections, and really add nothing worthwhile to the discussions, since they are purely emotional rather than rational arguments.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> These huge pictures you like to post really screw things up for those with slower internet connections, and really add nothing worthwhile to the discussions, since they are purely emotional rather than rational arguments.


And utterly ridiculous as well. :facepalm:


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> ]*The difference is the Govt pretends to be a lawbreaker, getting evidence on other law breakers*[/I]
> 
> In this case they pretended to be a legal entity, and but got confirmation of no illegal acts.
> 
> But you knew that before you started, being a former LEO yourself


Not Always, and yes I know from experience.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> Take all religion out of it. Does or does not abortion deny a human the right to life?


Rights begin at birth.
If you want to take religion out, then you go by the laws, which say abortion is legal


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> *Sounds like an argument* supermarkets would be very interested in supporting so they could start counting all their loss leader sales as donations instead of taxable sales income when they report profits and losses to the govt.


And yours sounds like an argument that makes no sense at all, comparing a retail store to a medical facility.

That's how your side loses credibility/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Not while the DOJ is ran by Obama's racists hate mongers


The DOJ would have no jurisdiction unless there was interstate transport of the samples, which would be a separate crime from any "sale".

They could (and would) have gone to state officials if they had real proof of a crime


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> *My* source???? That was taken from the link posted by either Pixie or PW earlier in this thread.
> 
> :hysterical:
> 
> ETA: It was taken from PW's link to the transcript. Post #81


The "source" was the makers of the video, no matter who posted the first link.
Silly icons don't change that


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> And yours sounds like an argument that makes no sense at all, comparing a retail store to a medical facility.
> 
> That's how your side loses credibility/


Nah, it's a very logical parrakel to the "business is business" mentality many people have.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Nah, it's a very logical parrakel to the "business is business" mentality many people have.


Business is business, but that doesn't make all businesses equal.

Pretending a grocery store selling products even remotely resembles the business of operating a medical facility providing services is a stretch of the imagination


----------



## Tricky Grama

Txsteader said:


> Is it wrong for adults to get a job, support themselves? Or do you believe that the cord should only be cut when the parent dies....that people should remain in perpetual childhood/dependence?


Maybe there's some statistics on how many non-conservatives help pregnant women b/4 and after vs conservatives who help. B/c we know conservatives donate more $, time & blood. Yet there's a few non-conserves here who pretty much dis conserves on this matter every time abortion is mentioned. 

Seems all that progressives want is for abortions to be on demand. I see NO far left or even progressive homes for unwed, seems all I see are churches, etc, which we have already seen in this thread are scorned by several non-conserves.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Business is business, but that doesn't make all businesses equal.
> 
> Pretending a grocery store selling products even remotely resembles the business of operating a medical facility providing services is a stretch of the imagination


Opinions vary.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Maybe there's some statistics on how many non-conservatives help pregnant women b/4 and after vs conservatives who help. B/c we know conservatives donate more $, time & blood. Yet there's a few non-conserves here who pretty much dis conserves on this matter every time abortion is mentioned.
> 
> Seems all that progressives want is for abortions to be on demand. I see NO far left or even progressive homes for unwed, seems all I see are churches, etc, which we have already seen in this thread are scorned by several non-conserves.


Guess those consevatives need to do a better job., stiil 130,000 children needed homes to adopt them right now.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Shine said:


> ...seems reasonable, if we can kill them inside the mother... why stop there? I can see another government panel that could make those decisions for us...
> 
> lol


One of the 'czars' of this admin-john Holgren, wrote quite a bit about forced abortions as well as those who were born w/defects. Also several phsycologists have advocated disposing of babies up to 2 mo. 

Funny it's never conservatives who think up these barbaric things.
And funny women or men for that matter don't have the right to do "with their bodies as they wish". Even if you still believe that oil' line about the baby being part of "your body".


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> on the flipside, without putting words in the salad eaters mouth, where in the entire video did she say tissue or organs were for sale? She plainly stated that fetal tissue and organs were available via "donation", and mentioned that there were conditions that had to be met in order to provide those donated organs in a usable state. Unlike a tshirt that can be stuffed in a box and fedexed to its destination, living tissue needs to be shipped in a sterile, climate controled manner to prevent damage to the tissue.
> 
> common sense


Knowing the price just to ship fish from kenai to anchorage from shore to store...min delivery was 300 dollars base... then one adds the wt and volume.... the price struck a me odd. So I searched for the legal containers and the base price was 139.dollars.

Being involved with over 60 affiliates.. and at a level in the corporate world to take the meeting...it smells.


----------



## Guest

130,000 yet unadopted and 6 million terminated by PP alone, hopefully all the happy do as I please, no responsibility crowd will die off by their self-serving debauchery. 

There is some good news though the HR 2722 passed 421-9 allocating 4.75 million for breast cancer research with the prohibition of the funds only be used for breast cancer research and can not be funneled to PP as the Susan Korman society did last year ($800,000).


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Opinions vary.


Which is why facts matter more


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> Rights begin at birth.


Really???

Then the person who assaults a pregnant woman & causes the fetus to die can't be charged with murder, huh?

You might want to re-think that.


----------



## Patchouli

Txsteader said:


> The good drs. words were......"*if they can *do a little better than breaking even, and do so in a way that *seems* reasonable, *they're happy to do that.*"
> 
> Why refuse to admit what she's saying???? Denial isn't going to make the words mean something different.



I can make anyone say anything I want so long as I yank it out of context. I looked back through your posts and noticed this is your little thing you have decided to hunker down and harp on no matter how many facts are presented to you so I will move on now.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which is why facts matter more


Facts are funny things though. Even the most basic, seemingly indisputable facts, are only facts because we have decided they are.

Even the color of the sky or what the date is, are disputable facts in you take the time to really look into them on a deeper level.

Facts are often disputed with reasonable logic or at least well thought out logic on both sides of an issues. Facts are often interpreted overtime as being refuted.

Yep, facts are funny things, because people's definitions of what constitute's a fact can be easily challenged more often than not.

Facts make sense to people when you can show people a reason to believe them or not, that makes sense to them.

Facts will only get oeople so far in a debate or discussion. So, when all you've got is the "but its a fact" line to hang your hat on, people shouldn't be surprised when they fall short of their target.

Takes awhile for most folks to chew through that and realize that is actually reality. But, the world makes a whole lot more sense if you're able to process that at least marginally to begin with.

Has nothing to do with discounting the absolute sincerity of people's beliefs in the facts they rely on or decisions they make based on those facts either.


----------



## Patchouli

gapeach said:


> If a mother has a late term or partial birth abortion, why isn't she first counseled to give her child up for adoption? In today's world, a mother is able to pick the parents for her child and even to have a relationship with the child if she wants to. Isn't that so much better than killing the baby?
> 
> The father should have options also.


Partial birth is NOT legal. Not legal. Really it is not legal. That would be yet another lie pro-lifers are fond of spreading. 




> The *Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003* (Pub.L. 108â105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. Â§ 1531,[1] *PBA Ban*) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[2] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of _Gonzales v. Carhart_.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act


As for late term abortions generally they are done due to the fetus having some sort of serious genetic issue. Since we can't place all the healthy children who need to be adopted these days what do you think are the chances we could place those with serious long term health issues?


----------



## Evons hubby

Woolieface said:


> The mother already made a decision prior to there being a separate human being inside of her.


Yes she did, I won't try to deny that for moment. What some do not seem to understand is that decision is quite often based on emotions, and in nearly all of the cases ending in an abortion, said woman was not deciding to have a child.... She was merely acting on basic natural impulses which rarely ends up with a fetus growing. Not to mention clear thinking is not normally associated with the use of alcohol and or other drugs.


----------



## kasilofhome

Doing the right thing is not an emotion it's a truth.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> Why are there children begging to be adopted if we have enough people waiting to adopt? Solve that oroblem first.


Prolly coz not many parents are eager to adopt crack babies.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Doing the right thing is not an emotion it's a truth.


The "right thing" according to whom? Therein lays the problem.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Doing the right thing is not an emotion it's a truth.


Lying isn't "the right thing"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Really???
> 
> Then the person who assaults a pregnant woman & causes the fetus to die can't be charged with murder, huh?
> 
> You might want to re-think that.


What does that have to do with "rights"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Facts will only get oeople so far in a debate or discussion. So, when all you've got is the "but its a fact" line to hang your hat on, people shouldn't be surprised when they fall short of their target.





> Even the color of the sky or what the date is, are disputable facts in you take the time to really look into them on a deeper level.



I'll take facts over all the disjointed psycho-babble any time, since it's just a diversion from the real topic


----------



## FarmerKat

Patchouli said:


> As for late term abortions generally they are done due to the fetus having some sort of serious genetic issue. Since we can't place all the healthy children who need to be adopted these days what do you think are the chances we could place those with serious long term health issues?


So what you are saying is that it is okay to kill disabled people so that we don't have to deal with them? 

We have several friends who have adopted children .... And only two of those families have children without health issues. These two families were able/willing to accept an open adoption. You know, the type of adoption where the biological mother gets to spend fun time with her kid but does not bear any responsibility for raising him/her. The families who did not think they could handle open adoption have children who are deaf, mute, have Down syndrome, have autism and a child who needed multiple surgeries just so that he can walk. I think they are all considerably better off than dead - I will even venture out to say they are living happy lives.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> What does that have to do with "rights"?


You've had a busy day. Hopefully you're getting some sleep because if you can't see what it has to do w/ your statement of rights begin at birth, there's really no point in me explaining it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

FarmerKat said:


> So what you are saying is that it is okay to kill disabled people so that we don't have to deal with them?
> 
> We have several friends who have adopted children .... And only two of those families have children without health issues. These two families were able/willing to accept an open adoption. You know, the type of adoption where the biological mother gets to spend fun time with her kid but does not bear any responsibility for raising him/her. The families who did not think they could handle open adoption have children who are deaf, mute, have Down syndrome, have autism and a child who needed multiple surgeries just so that he can walk. I think they are all considerably better off than dead - I will even venture out to say they are living happy lives.


Nope. That is not what Patchouli said. She said, "As for late term abortions generally they are done due to the fetus having some sort of serious genetic issue. Since we can't place all the healthy children who need to be adopted these days what do you think are the chances we could place those with serious long term health issues?" You are giving an example of what, several families? Seriously? How many abortions do you think are done a year due to serious genetic mutations? 

The families that adopt disabled children are very special people. 

The majority of states (26) ban abortion after 24-26 weeks. At that point the fetus can be viable.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'll take facts over all the disjointed psycho-babble any time, since it's just a diversion from the real topic


I figured you'd have to pop off and say something like that. Despite what you think you've communicated to me, your words say to me you're yielding, or forfeiting, or being unable to continue.

Feel free to lash out and weakly declare my words psychobabble as loud as you like. When, you realize mid post it's no a great argument, feel free to cry foul that I'm rule breaking and not playing fair cause it's off topic.

Some of us prefer to get past the "simple statements" portions of conversations you accused me of not understanding earlier. Especially when wanting to discuss mature topics. But, by all means, please continue to try and redirect and bully me and others into submission. 

I love it, cause I only weakens the validity of your own points and fortifies to others that the people you chase around the forums and criticize must be on to something. After all, why mock or attack someone's posts constantly if they are not a threat.

I quote people sometimes. But, just as often it's because I've found something I agree with as disagree. And, quite a lot of the time I just put up posts that are my own complete thoughts.

I don't need to just banter back and forth with people picking apart their own words trying to use a person's own words against themselves.

Occasionally everyone does. But, some people seem to use that as a crutch, and be rather unable to generate an independent post that isn't somehow founded on tearing attempting to tear apart another person.

Obviously, your mileage may vary.

But, hopefully posting this will help some people reading here to filter past the superficial layers of the conversation, cause some of these hot topic threads are interesting and worth discussing. But, not be f they're just sound bites and talking points, IMO.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> I figured you'd have to pop off and say something like that. Despite what you think you've communicated to me, your words say to me you're yielding, or forfeiting, or being unable to continue.
> 
> Feel free to lash out and weakly declare my words psychobabble as loud as you like. When, you realize mid post it's no a great argument, feel free to cry foul that I'm rule breaking and not playing fair cause it's off topic.
> 
> Some of us prefer to get past the "simple statements" portions of conversations you accused me of not understanding earlier. Especially when wanting to discuss mature topics. But, by all means, please continue to try and redirect and bully me and others into submission.
> 
> I love it, cause I only weakens the validity of your own points and fortifies to others that the people you chase around the forums and criticize must be on to something. After all, why mock or attack someone's posts constantly if they are not a threat.
> 
> I quote people sometimes. But, just as often it's because I've found something I agree with as disagree. And, quite a lot of the time I just put up posts that are my own complete thoughts.
> 
> I don't need to just banter back and forth with people picking apart their own words trying to use a person's own words against themselves.
> 
> Occasionally everyone does. But, some people seem to use that as a crutch, and be rather unable to generate an independent post that isn't somehow founded on tearing attempting to tear apart another person.
> 
> Obviously, your mileage may vary.
> 
> But, hopefully posting this will help some people reading here to filter past the superficial layers of the conversation, cause some of these hot topic threads are interesting and worth discussing. But, not be f they're just sound bites and talking points, IMO.


That is a lot of words just to say a lot of nothing. That was BFF's point. He was very concise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> You've had a busy day. Hopefully you're getting some sleep because if you can't see what it has to do w/ your statement of rights begin at birth, there's really no point in me explaining it.


I didn't think you would answer


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *I figured you'd have to pop off and say something like that*. Despite what you think you've communicated to me, your words say to me you're yielding, or forfeiting, or being unable to continue.


That's because you already knew it was psychobabble, and the second post is a continuation of the same *word games* that have nothing to do with the real topic.

You played the victim card, the "I'm better than you" card (several times), the "you're a stalker" card, and the "I'm winning" card and the "I'm helping everyone" card all in that second post alone

Your psychology professor would be proud.


----------



## FarmerKat

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. That is not what Patchouli said. She said, "As for late term abortions generally they are done due to the fetus having some sort of serious genetic issue.* Since we can't place all the healthy children who need to be adopted these days what do you think are the chances we could place those with serious long term health issues?*" You are giving an example of what, several families? Seriously? How many abortions do you think are done a year due to serious genetic mutations?
> 
> The families that adopt disabled children are very special people.
> 
> The majority of states (26) ban abortion after 24-26 weeks. At that point the fetus can be viable.


Yes, I read what Patchouli said (I quoted the post I was responding to). The way it reads to me is that since we can't place all the healthy children, then we are better off killing the ones that have health issues because odds of them finding an adoptive family is lower. 

I obviously do not know every single family in the US that adopted in children with health problems ... but if I know several families, I imagine everyone else does to (I am not that unusual, odds are there millions of women like me out there). These are not people I "heard of", these are people we know and spend time with. Every single one of these families adopted more than one child with significant health challenges.


----------



## gapeach

I have known people who begged to adopt the child that they were fostering but sometimes children are not free for adoption for years. It could be because the father will not sign away his child even though he cannot raise the child himself. A lot of times the bio mom is in and out of rehab but she will not give up custody. I admire these foster parents but I could never have done it. When you care for a child daily, you and that child form a real bond and it would be horrible on both the foster parent and child to have to give him/her up.

A lot of premature babies are saved at 26 weeks.
When my daughter was pregnant with twins and on bed rest from 4 mos on, her doctor told her that a baby born at 26 weeks has quite a good chance of surviving. Basically the earliest gestational age at which the baby has at least a 50% chance of survival is at 24 weeks this is called "the point of viability" so if you use that as a guideline then your baby had at least a 55% of surviving.


----------



## Txsteader

Txsteader said:


> You've had a busy day. Hopefully you're getting some sleep because if you can't see what it has to do w/ your statement of rights begin at birth, there's really no point in me explaining it.





Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't think you would answer


I'll make it as simple as I can.

If rights begin at birth, as you claim, then how can someone be sentenced for murder of an unborn child that was the result of an assault on the mother.

But I already know your answer. It will be Pixie's answer, that the rights of the unborn depend on the mother's intent to keep the child or murder it herself via abortion.


----------



## painterswife

I can only speak for myself. I have no problem with abortion under 12 weeks. I would have difficulty in the weeks from 12 -22. I would have to have a medical reason for it after 22 weeks.

I don't wish abortions to be the easy out. I also don't believe that for most it is. I understand that for some it is a no go at any point from pre-fertilization to a known still born death.

The problem is that it is not my body and not my choice. That fetus requires a womb and that womb is in someone else's body. I can no more force that person to carry that fetus to term than I can force another person to supply me with a blood transfusion or part of their liver so that I can live.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> I can only speak for myself. I have no problem with abortion under 12 weeks. I would have difficulty in the weeks from 12 -22. I would have to have a medical reason for it after 22 weeks.
> 
> I don't wish abortions to be the easy out. I also don't believe that for most it is. I understand that for some it is a no go at any point from pre-fertilization to a know still born death.
> 
> The problem is that it is not my body and not my choice. That fetus requires a womb and that womb is in someone else's body. I can no more force that person to carry that fetus to term than I can force another person to supply me with a blood transfusion or part of their liver so that I can live.


Post of the decade.


----------



## Txsteader

Patchouli said:


> I can make anyone say anything I want so long as I yank it out of context. *I looked back through your posts and noticed this is your little thing you have decided to hunker down and harp on no matter how many facts are presented to you* so I will move on now.


Seriously? 

Did you count Pixie's and BFF's posts, too? 

Did I go to sleep and wake up in Cuba?


----------



## hippygirl

Txsteader said:


> I'll make it as simple as I can.
> 
> If rights begin at birth, as you claim, then how can someone be sentenced for murder of an unborn child that was the result of an assault on the mother.
> 
> But I already know your answer. It will be Pixie's answer, that the rights of the unborn depend on the mother's intent to keep the child or murder it herself via abortion.


Some people seemingly need to be able to justify their actions regardless of how heinous they might have been...it's a "baby" ONLY if the mother WANTS it, otherwise, it's just a lump of so much tissue to be excised as if it were a tumor.

Pretty convenient, huh!


----------



## Guest

"As for late term abortions generally they are done due to the fetus having some sort of serious genetic issue. Since we can't place all the healthy children who need to be adopted these days what do you think are the chances we could place those with serious long term health issues?"

Interesting, but the word "generally" would suggest a high percentage would fall into your paradigm. What I have found reports only about 0.5% of abortions fall into the category of reason being fetus abnormality. Someone is spewing false facts,


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> "As for late term abortions generally they are done due to the fetus having some sort of serious genetic issue. Since we can't place all the healthy children who need to be adopted these days what do you think are the chances we could place those with serious long term health issues?"
> 
> Interesting, but the word "generally" would suggest a high percentage would fall into your paradigm. What I have found reports only about 0.5% of abortions fall into the category of reason being fetus abnormality. Someone is spewing false facts,


.5%of all abortions or .5% of late term abortions. Context is everything. Links to your numbers please.


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> .5%of all abortions or .5% of late term abortions. Context is everything. Links to your numbers please.



Well let's see mid- trimester testing done (18-20 weeks) according to children's health at Stanford is the time where more definitive tests for abnormalities take place, although on "occasions some preliminary testing is done in the first trimester.

So using mid trimester as the base there have been a little over 28,500 after 16 week gestation abortions preformed in the U.S. this year. 0.5% of that = 1,425

Planned Parenthood has preformed over 179,000 abortions so far this year.


----------



## painterswife

[No message]


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> Well let's see mid- trimester testing done (18-20 weeks) according to children's health at Stanford is the time where more definitive tests for abnormalities take place, although on "occasions some preliminary testing is done in the first trimester.
> 
> So using mid trimester as the base there have been a little over 28,500 after 16 week gestation abortions preformed in the U.S. this year. 0.5% of that = 1,425
> 
> Planned Parenthood has preformed over 179,000 abortions so far this year.


1.2% of abortions are done late term ( after 21 weeks). 1.06 million done in 2011. That means aprox 12,720 late term abortion done in 2011.

How many were because of birth defects? Please show us the .5% statistics cite.


----------



## Woolieface

Tricky Grama said:


> One of the 'czars' of this admin-john Holgren, wrote quite a bit about forced abortions as well as those who were born w/defects. Also several phsycologists have advocated disposing of babies up to 2 mo.
> 
> Funny it's never conservatives who think up these barbaric things.
> And funny women or men for that matter don't have the right to do "with their bodies as they wish". Even if you still believe that oil' line about the baby being part of "your body".


He actually also advocated for "after birth abortions" up to two years old.


----------



## Woolieface

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes she did, I won't try to deny that for moment. What some do not seem to understand is that decision is quite often based on emotions, and in nearly all of the cases ending in an abortion, said woman was not deciding to have a child.... She was merely acting on basic natural impulses which rarely ends up with a fetus growing. Not to mention clear thinking is not normally associated with the use of alcohol and or other drugs.


Well, yes and all that boils down to a lack of responsibility. We got to grow up and take some....


----------



## Guest

I did the best due diligence available to me and found your term "generally" false, maybe you can prove to me it's truth statistically. If so I will will concede to the legitimate proof. Although the small numbers in your hyperbole mean little in the grand total of genocide.


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> I did the best due diligence available to me and found your term "generally" false, maybe you can prove to me it's truth statistically. If so I will will concede to the legitimate proof. Although the small numbers in your hyperbole mean little in the grand total of genocide.


You don't wish to share the stats you found?


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> 1.2% of abortions are done late term ( after 21 weeks). 1.06 million done in 2011. That means aprox 12,720 late term abortion done in 2011.
> 
> How many were because of birth defects? Please show us the .5% statistics cite.


According to your definition of late term it falls within the the second trimester which is from week 13 through 28, testing is commonly done midway into the trimester 18-20 weeks. Definitive testing would be the basis for aborting late term (your late term) for abnormalities genetically. So statistically you are implying the term "generally", which would need to be above 50%, so let's take the figure you supplied 12,720 @ 51 percent = 6360. So as with all statistics there is a margin of error, but you still have failed to provide proof, that generally as you defined late term abortions are due to abnormalities. If I find anything close to your assumption statistically proven I will be amazed.


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> According to your definition of late term it falls within the the second trimester which is from week 13 through 28, testing is commonly done midway into the trimester 18-20 weeks. Definitive testing would be the basis for aborting late term (your late term) for abnormalities genetically. So statistically you are implying the term "generally", which would need to be above 50%, so let's take the figure you supplied 12,720 @ 51 percent = 6360. So as with all statistics there is a margin of error, but you still have failed to provide proof, that generally as you defined late term abortions are due to abnormalities. If I find anything close to your assumption statistically proven I will be amazed.


Now you are just confusing yourself. I did not use the general term. I did ask for links to your statistics.


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> You don't wish to share the stats you found?


Read on, one statistical study found, take it or poo poo it I could care less. At least I can attempt to find statistics and apply them can you.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html


----------



## Evons hubby

Woolieface said:


> Well, yes and all that boils down to a lack of responsibility. We got to grow up and take some....


And on which planet do you really think thats going to happen? Its quite difficult for someone who has no clue about personal responsibility to teach their offspring to be responsible for themselves. Our country has even allowed grandparents to skate through life without preparing themselves for the inevitable old age that we all know is coming, what are the odds we can teach a new generation to take care of themselves and their offspring they created early in their life?


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> Now you are just confusing yourself. I did not use the general term. I did ask for links to your statistics.


Yea I know patchouli wrote it, you are defending it though,,, and I addressed you.


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> Read on, one statistical study found, take it or poo poo it I could care less. At least I can attempt to find statistics and apply them can you.
> 
> http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html


I am asking about that .5% stat you keep posting.


----------



## Evons hubby

some interesting data I found. I know its a bit off topic for this thread, but the thread seems to have already drifted to this area. (along with the normal bickering twixt the players)

Nine in 10 abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.[5]
&#8226; A broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions:[3]
58% are in their 20s;
61% have one or more children;
56% are unmarried and not cohabiting;
69% are economically disadvantaged; and
73% report a religious affiliation.

heres the link: https://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/abortion-US/statsandfacts.html


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> I am asking about that .5% stat you keep posting.


It's in the link I guess you should read it.


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> It's in the link I guess you should read it.


Okay that .5% is gathered from statics in 7 or 8 states and does not have any actual stats on abortions due to fetal abnormalities in the late term.

Nothing there about late term stats.

This report has different stats https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

It says 7% in this report cited health concerns for themselves or health problems of the fetus. This again is over the entire range of abortions not just late term.

We do know though that the tests for problems happens between 18-20 weeks and that pushes most of these abortions into the later term or very close.


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> Okay that .5% is gathered from statics in 7 or 8 states and does not have any actual stats on abortions due to fetal abnormalities in the late term.
> 
> Nothing there about late term stats.
> 
> This report has different stats https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf
> 
> It says 7% in this report cited health concerns for themselves or health problems of the fetus. This again is over the entire range of abortions not just late term.
> 
> We do know though that the tests for problems happens between 18-20 weeks and that pushes most of these abortions into the later term or very close.


Ok where is your proof that they a generally aborted in late term for abnormalities, show me. I spelled out my reasoning from the statistics, you are making assumptions. There is no factual statistical study to prove your assumption that I can find. I at least attempted to find it. Now go support the death, you do have that right.

By the way most critical abnormalities are aborted naturally, so I will make an assumption if you theory is accurate that those late term abortions for abnormalities must usually be for aesthetic reasons if an abnormality existed.


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> Ok where is your proof that they a generally aborted in late term for abnormalities, show me. I spelled out my reasoning from the statistics, you are making assumptions. There is no factual statistical study to prove your assumption that I can find. I at least attempted to find it. Now go support the death, you do have that right.
> 
> By the way most critical abnormalities are aborted naturally, so I will make an assumption if you theory is accurate that those late term abortions for abnormalities must usually be for aesthetic reasons if an abnormality existed.


I did make assumptions. You did as well. I was just proving that.


----------



## Patchouli

FarmerKat said:


> Yes, I read what Patchouli said (I quoted the post I was responding to). The way it reads to me is that since we can't place all the healthy children, then we are better off killing the ones that have health issues because odds of them finding an adoptive family is lower.
> 
> I obviously do not know every single family in the US that adopted in children with health problems ... but if I know several families, I imagine everyone else does to (I am not that unusual, odds are there millions of women like me out there). These are not people I "heard of", these are people we know and spend time with. Every single one of these families adopted more than one child with significant health challenges.


I stated facts and made no judgments. It's a fact that most late term abortions are due to serious genetic defects. Some of those children won't live long at all outside the womb. Some will suffer greatly once born. Some will live and their parents can't afford to care for them or are not able to care for them for other reasons. 

It's a fact that there is a very limited pool of families looking to adopt. And very few of those want children with severe health issues. 

The post I originally responded to seemed to assume there would be adoptive families just waiting out there for these children if the mother would just go ahead with the pregnancy. My response was merely rebutting that assumption with the facts that no there are not and this is why.


----------



## Woolieface

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And on which planet do you really think thats going to happen? Its quite difficult for someone who has no clue about personal responsibility to teach their offspring to be responsible for themselves. Our country has even allowed grandparents to skate through life without preparing themselves for the inevitable old age that we all know is coming, what are the odds we can teach a new generation to take care of themselves and their offspring they created early in their life?


It doesn't remedy that to give people an easy out... especially when that easy out involves killing another human being.


----------



## Evons hubby

Woolieface said:


> It doesn't remedy that to give people an easy out... especially when that easy out involves killing another human being.


Would it be easy if it were you in that position? I hear this all the time but I doubt that its an easy decision for anyone. What does seem to be easy is for others to condemn and criticize people who dont happen to live up to their own expectations.


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> "As for late term abortions generally they are done due to the fetus having some sort of serious genetic issue. Since we can't place all the healthy children who need to be adopted these days what do you think are the chances we could place those with serious long term health issues?"
> 
> Interesting, but the word "generally" would suggest a high percentage would fall into your paradigm. What I have found reports only about 0.5% of abortions fall into the category of reason being fetus abnormality. Someone is spewing false facts,



Is your percentage for all abortions or late term ones? 

89% of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks. 1.2% occur after 21 weeks. 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

I just waded through about 10 articles on the reasons for late term abortion and the honest answer is we don't know for sure. Reasons are not collected at the time of the abortion and so that kicks the question to studies after the fact and to the best of my knowledge there has only ever been one very tiny one done specifically on late term abortion motivations. The reasons in that one varied and the articles tend to come down on whatever issue their particular political slant leans towards. 

So I will concede in the end we don't know. Severe birth defects are generally found and confirmed beyond the shadow of any doubt at 20 weeks. That lends credence to the argument of medical reasons. There are also other reasons like lack of funds for an early abortion and the time needed to scrape up funds, women who just don't know they are pregnant until later in the pregnancy and women who start the pregnancy on good grounds and then that shifts (father leaves, lost job, etc.)


----------



## Guest

Thank you Patchouli you are right we do not know, that was my point.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Did you count Pixie's and BFF's posts, too?
> 
> Did I go to sleep and wake up in Cuba?


I have no idea where you woke up, but you can't seem to grasp the concept that abortion is not "murder" according to the law.

You don't get to decide what is "right" for anyone besides yourself


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> "As for late term abortions generally they are done due to the fetus having some sort of serious genetic issue. Since we can't place all the healthy children who need to be adopted these days what do you think are the chances we could place those with serious long term health issues?"
> 
> Interesting, but the word "generally" would suggest a high percentage would fall into your paradigm. What I have found reports only about 0.5% of abortions fall into the category of reason being fetus abnormality.
> 
> *Someone is spewing false facts*,


I see you posting lots of numbers with no sources to back them up.
Why not just post the links and let everyone see it all?

Also, you took a quote about "late term abortions" then changed the numbers to ALL abortions to make the first quote seem inaccurate.

It has to be kept in context if you want credibility


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> I see you posting lots of numbers with no sources to back them up.
> Why not just post the links and let everyone see it all?


Maybe you should find your own facts or read the posts and find the link yourself. I accepted Patchouli s explanation, you are the fact master have at it. I could care less about your demands.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Maybe you should find your own facts or read the posts and find the link yourself. I accepted Patchouli s explanation, you are the fact master have at it. I could care less about your demands.


You complained about "false facts" while adding none of your own.

You accepted her explanation while I was typing my post.

I made no "demands" so don't try that word game either.


----------



## arabian knight

A petition is going around to end the nonsense once and for all.In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation's throat. 

In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there -- passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.

But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won't be offended. 

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over. 

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.


----------



## Woolieface

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Would it be easy if it were you in that position? I hear this all the time but I doubt that its an easy decision for anyone. What does seem to be easy is for others to condemn and criticize
> 
> The only thing that would make it not easy is that one has to wrestle around with their sense of right and wrong to make a decision on it. There's no way around that... and if you had to do that, it's because your conscience objected. If there was nothing basic in human nature that objected to it, every supporter could call it an easy decision. What wins out in instances where the choice is abortion, is the weighing of which seems the easier choice....caring for the child they conceived or dealing with a grieved conscience over a choice that can not be undone.
> 
> I do not condemn people....I condemn actions.


----------



## wr

arabian knight said:


> A petition is going around to end the nonsense once and for all.In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation's throat.
> 
> In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there -- passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.
> 
> But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won't be offended.
> 
> Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.
> 
> Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.


I don't see that going too far.


----------



## Shine

...it would be the only thing that protects the unborn, people are just massing to the abortion clinics to kill their unwanted babies. How many million children have been killed? 

If God still smiles on this country, it will come to pass.


----------



## Guest

Shine said:


> ...it would be the only thing that protects the unborn, people are just massing to the abortion clinics to kill their unwanted babies. How many million children have been killed?
> about 58 million sense roe vs wade
> 
> If God still smiles on this country, it will come to pass.


Sodom and gammorah ring a bell


----------



## Tiempo

This is a liberal rag and I'm too tired to look into it further to check it out tonight, but if this is true, the group that made the video could be in a world of trouble 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...hood-sting-is-a-fake-front-group-lied-to-irs/



> ... flat-out frauds asking for donations as a biomedical non-profit even though they are not even remotely such a group.


----------



## Shine

Somehow... it really doesn't matter if the video was altered to make their point... the killings must stop. You change the words, the meanings, but it doesn't change reality. it is still killing, legal or not.


----------



## Evons hubby

Woolieface said:


> The only thing that would make it not easy is that one has to wrestle around with their sense of right and wrong to make a decision on it. There's no way around that... and if you had to do that, it's because your conscience objected. If there was nothing basic in human nature that objected to it, every supporter could call it an easy decision. What wins out in instances where the choice is abortion, is the weighing of which seems the easier choice....*caring for the child they conceived *or dealing with a grieved conscience over a choice that can not be undone.
> 
> I do not condemn people....I condemn actions.


i think some would also consider their ability to care for that child.... Being unable to care for oneself would be pretty scary place to be when a person discovers there will soon be another needing so much. There is a difference between an easy way out and the only way out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Somehow... *it really doesn't matter if the video was altered *to make their point... the killings must stop. You change the words, the meanings, but it doesn't change reality. it is still killing, legal or not.


Actually it DOES matter if they lied. You constantly complain about "sin"

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by arabian knight View Post
> A petition is going around to end the nonsense once and for all.In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation's throat.


A petition isn't going to change that ruling


----------



## Txsteader

Tiempo said:


> This is a liberal rag and I'm too tired to look into it further to check it out tonight, but if this is true, *the group that made the video could be in a world of trouble *
> 
> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...hood-sting-is-a-fake-front-group-lied-to-irs/


As well they should, IF they broke the law. 

I'm not going to hysterically defend them just because they're conservative or because left-wing media attacks them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Woolieface View Post
> 
> The only thing that would make it not easy is that one has to wrestle around with* their sense of right and wrong* to make a decision on it.


Keyword "THEIR"

Not "your"


----------



## Patchouli

Tiempo said:


> This is a liberal rag and I'm too tired to look into it further to check it out tonight, but if this is true, the group that made the video could be in a world of trouble
> 
> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...hood-sting-is-a-fake-front-group-lied-to-irs/


Lying liars who lie eh? As I have said before if you have to resort to lying to defend your cause you should probably rethink your cause.


----------



## Evons hubby

arabian knight said:


> A petition is going around to end the nonsense once and for all.In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation's throat.


No one is being forced to have an abortion. Not today, not in 1973, not ever. What the supremes did was to "allow" those women who wanted an abortion to be able to do so in daylight.


----------



## Txsteader

deleted


----------



## gibbsgirl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> No one is being forced to have an abortion. Not today, not in 1973, not ever. What the supremes did was to "allow" those women who wanted an abortion to be able to do so in daylight.


Making abortions legal has made it less dangerous than when drs could not legally do them. But, they are still risky for the mother, and fatal for the child.

Also, many women can be put under duress now. Some people are openly critical of parents who risk or knowingly have a child with birth defects. Some women refuse tests to identify birth defects. It would help them to know what to prepare for. But, they decline and it's not solely because some tests are risky or expensive. They don't need the stress during pregnancy or after of the people who will say they had no business burdening the child or others with a kid who wasn't perfect.

Women now have to contend with family and employers who can burden them with guilt because they were selfish in their timing by having children at a less than ideal time.

And, there are women who are for all intents and purposes forced to have them. Maybe you just don't realize it cause it's never come up. Have you never thought of the women that are told by a father that they can either have an abortion electively or the father will take care of being sure the child is aborted without a drs assistance?

These are ugly things to talk about. And, I don't think they represent that abortion is horrific for all women.

But, they are some of the reasons I say that I firmly believe that the process the system is functioning within currently has a long way to go to be a good one. Just making them legal was not any greater solution than just making them illegal was.

Women and their unborn children are facing many difficulties now as in then. And, there is much that could be done to make things better. But, I don't see a lot of progress being made with such firm lines drawn and so many people entrenched and unwilling to budge.


----------



## Evons hubby

gibbsgirl said:


> Making abortions legal has made it less dangerous than when drs could not legally do them. But, they are still risky for the mother, and fatal for the child.
> 
> Also, many women can be put under duress now. Some people are openly critical of parents who risk or knowingly have a child with birth defects. Some women refuse tests to identify birth defects. It would help them to know what to prepare for. But, they decline and it's not solely because some tests are risky or expensive. They don't need the stress during pregnancy or after of the people who will say they had no business burdening the child or others with a kid who wasn't perfect.
> 
> Women now have to contend with family and employers who can burden them with guilt because they were selfish in their timing by having children at a less than ideal time.
> 
> And, there are women who are for all intents and purposes forced to have them. Maybe you just don't realize it cause it's never come up. Have you never thought of the women that are told by a father that they can either have an abortion electively or the father will take care of being sure the child is aborted without a drs assistance?
> 
> These are ugly things to talk about. And, I don't think they represent that abortion is horrific for all women.
> 
> But, they are some of the reasons I say that I firmly believe that the process the system is functioning within currently has a long way to go to be a good one. Just making them legal was not any greater solution than just making them illegal was.
> 
> Women and their unborn children are facing many difficulties now as in then. And, there is much that could be done to make things better. But, I don't see a lot of progress being made with such firm lines drawn and so many people entrenched and unwilling to budge.


I think we are pretty much in agreement on this topic, although you do have a bit better grip on how to put things in words than I. I am curious though as to what your ideas are to make this issue "better"? It has for a long time been a hard line topic without much room for compromise. Those who oppose abortions arent willing to give an inch, those who feel its a womans choice (setting fathers and other peer pressure aside) arent willing to give that right up either. Me? I hope that women choose to not have an abortion, but it should be their choice. Not their fathers, not their peers or bosses and certainly not "the majority" but their own.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think we are pretty much in agreement on this topic, although you do have a bit better grip on how to put things in words than I. I am curious though as to what your ideas are to make this issue "better"? It has for a long time been a hard line topic without much room for compromise. Those who oppose abortions arent willing to give an inch, those who feel its a womans choice (setting fathers and other peer pressure aside) arent willing to give that right up either. Me? I hope that women choose to not have an abortion, but it should be their choice. Not their fathers, not their peers or bosses and certainly not "the majority" but their own.


OK. Think about a debate. There's two politicians, a moderator and an audience. The audience is there to listen. The moderator is there to oversee that each side gets to say what they want and that the audience and politicians don't interrupt.

The politicians can say what they like. Even if it's inflammatory. Even if it's a half truth. Even if it's a bold faced lie. There's even time for rebuttals.

The point is. Things get talked about openly. And, even though some people choose to not attend or watch, the platform exists in a very public way for each side to have their input welcome before a voter even goes to the polls to cast a vote. They have a way to try and make an informed decision, by availing themselves of that resource. And, they are free to do so without declaring to anyone which side, if either, they feel they agree with.

The problem with the abortion debate is it's not a debate. The very loud extremists that are heard most often are snuffing out that process. They want the other side to stop "lying". To stop " telling people what to do". To stop allowing people to give testimony. To stop allowing people to share as much science can offer to let individual women know information. To stop women from having as much knowledge as can be offered to make an informed decision. And, its because the extremists on both sides believe so strongly that ultimately they don't want a woman to make the choice that she feels is right if it disagrees with what they feel is right. Women are not freer because it's legal. They have tremendous pressure to make this decision.

I hate abortion. I even hate it when it seems necessary. But, I try in my personal life to listen to both sides and to at least be open to listening to individuals. I've shared stuff with women over the years that is my personal history, and that of a few relatives and friends and listened to other women share with me. And, its helped. But, its not stuff I just throw out their for people to chop apart publicly for me and its not for them either.

So the only way I truly see the debate and acceptance process playing out with some success is behind closed doors and very privately. And, that leaves a lot of women hanging out in the storm and unsure of even who to talk to.

I'd like it if society could get to a better place to allow those private discussions to exist more openly. I'd like both sides that are so extreme to share how women can get in touch with the other side. Or even share space at events and locations or even in brochure racks at clinics more than they do now.

Because now, what I see is too many women who are only strong enough to find that help after the have physical and emotional problems they can't handle alone after an abortion instead of before. And, the pain of regret is a terrible thing to bear.

Roe v Wade took us from one e treme to another in many ways. And, extremes are a poor solution.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> I'd like it if society could get to a better place to allow those *private discussions to exist more openly*. I'd like both sides that are so extreme to share how women can get in touch with the other side. Or even share space at events and locations or even in brochure racks at clinics more than they do now.


Those are private discussions for a very good reason. It is not conducive to the metal heath of a women considering abortion to be bombarded with people telling her she is a murderer. Pro Choice tell her it is her decision. They don't force or guilt her into choosing one option over the other. They would love for her to have all the information. They would love for her to never have to face this decision.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Those are private discussions for a very good reason. It is not conducive to the metal heath of a women considering abortion to be bombarded with people telling her she is a murderer. Pro Choice tell her it is her decision. They don't force or guilt her into choosing one option over the other. They would love for her to have all the information. They would love for her to never have to face this decision.


Once again, thanks for making my point for me by trying to stifle the freedom to allow people to have an open discussion by dismissing or discounting my point as patently wrong or invalid.

Think what you want. Whatever gets you through your day.

But, I guarantee you that even on these threads the last few days people on both sides and in-between have held back and not posted stuff. They're dissuaded from speaking openly because people won't allow them the peace of just putting their thoughts out there. 

And, that is tragic, IMO, cause this was an opportunity for people to hear from others. And, it may have helped a woman or her relatives or friends who currently is or will in the future face a pregnancy and a decision to be unburdened from talking it out without fear of the repercussions.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> Once again, thanks for making my point for me by trying to stifle the freedom to allow people to have an open discussion by dismissing or discounting my point as patently wrong or invalid.
> 
> Think what you want. Whatever gets you through your day.
> 
> But, I guarantee you that even on these threads the last few days people on both sides and in-between have held back and not posted stuff. They're dissuaded from speaking openly because people won't allow them the peace of just putting their thoughts out there.
> 
> And, that is tragic, IMO, cause this was an opportunity for people to hear from others. And, it may have helped a woman or her relatives or friends who currently is or will in the future face a pregnancy and a decision to be unburdened from talking it out without fear of the repercussions.


How am I stifling anything? I am sharing the reality. I speak from experience. There are safe places to discuss this and this is not one of them. I already said in the other abortion thread this same thing. It would be great to have a actual discussion with input from those that have faced this decision.

That first sentence in your post reeks of judgement because someone else has a different opinion.


----------



## farmrbrown

I saw this story and thread earlier, but didn't comment. Being a man, abortion is one of the subjects I can't speak of with any personal, intimate knowledge so I listen more than I speak about it.

But having seen the video of the Dr. an hour ago on FOX, I sure can appreciate why abortion advocates would have wished that private conversation never saw the light of day.

I'm stunned and horrified, yet I know there are people like that who walk this earth.

God have mercy on their souls.........:awh:


----------



## gibbsgirl

You're speaking from your reality and your experience. And I think that's valid.

My point is what most people consider reality isn't a clone reality of others. And, people have many experiences, lots of differences there.

I'd like to see it more open to people not having their own realities have to invalidate other people's realities.

Look resource and information availability is not everywhere for any issues. Even for things like addiction support or poverty support or support for caregivers or support for people of all faiths, cancer support groups, etc.

But, the difference is society by and large has no debate that information, charity, and support services for many of those issues do indeed help people and are worthwhiole and sometimes very necessary and integral to helping people. And, a lot of the stigma of supporting and partaking on those resources has largely been kept to a minimum.

But, with abortion, birth control, etc. There is still a lot of stigma attached to supporting or allowing or encouraging women to support or partake in those groups.

Like all of the other things I just mentioned, resources are spotty and unavailable in some places. But, by and large the prolife or prochoice sides are still locked in a debate about whether either is right to even exist. And, that gets us nowhere.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually it DOES matter if they lied. You constantly complain about "sin"
> 
> "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour"


First, we are all sinners, you, me, those over there, those over here, all humans everywhere. Name one who is without sin.

No, it does not matter to me if they lied. I see this whether it is truthful or not as reminding people that this is a conflict that needs to be discussed, pondered and a subject that all should stand up on one side or the other. 

I noticed that you like to quote select items from the Bible, why would you attempt to strike one person down with the above verse and then close your eyes to the one that says "Thou SHALL NOT kill." I am pretty sure this commandment is why many followers of Christ have a problem with Abortion.

Matthew 19:14 definitely guides us in this matter.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> You're speaking from your reality and your experience. And I think that's valid.
> 
> My point is what most people consider reality isn't a clone reality of others. And, people have many experiences, lots of differences there.
> 
> I'd like to see it more open to people not having their own realities have to invalidate other people's realities.
> 
> Look resource and information availability is not everywhere for any issues. Even for things like addiction support or poverty support or support for caregivers or support for people of all faiths, cancer support groups, etc.
> 
> But, the difference is society by and large has no debate that information, charity, and support services for many of those issues do indeed help people and are worthwhiole and sometimes very necessary and integral to helping people. And, a lot of the stigma of supporting and partaking on those resources has largely been kept to a minimum.
> 
> But, with abortion, birth control, etc. There is still a lot of stigma attached to supporting or allowing or encouraging women to support or partake in those groups.
> 
> Like all of the other things I just mentioned, resources are spotty and unavailable in some places. But, by and large the prolife or prochoice sides are still locked in a debate about whether either is right to even exist. And, that gets us nowhere.


How can they share when considering or having an abortion wins you the label of murderer?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Can we leave religion out of this? It has nothing to do with the highly edited video that was the original topic of this thread.


----------



## farmrbrown

I think quite enough is being asked to be left out already. If everyone leaves out everything they don't want to talk about, there won't be anything left to say.


Isn't the first step of a discussion, facing the facts?
It doesn't have to come up at the first greeting, but eventually, after all the words are spoken, do you not agree that facing what life is, how it is created and how it is ended, WILL come up in the discussion?


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Isn't the first step of a discussion, facing the facts?
> It doesn't have to come up at the first greeting, but eventually, after all the words are spoken, do you not agree that facing what life is, how it is created and how it is ended, WILL come up in the discussion?


Nope. I do not believe in your god.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> How can they share when considering or having an abortion wins you the label of murderer?


One of the first steps to finding compromise and a way forward is to be able to let those you oppose say things that rattle you to your core and that you vehemently disagree with.

Then, you have to be willing to hear the rest of what they say. 

Then, you have to be willing to say your side and try and present it in a way that allows for hopefully them to hear something and not shut your words out.

It's not easy to listen and hear. Lots of people just take turns talking, and wait for a break so they can jump in and have their say. That's not the same as hearing and trying.

I'm not a believer in I will as long as you do either. That's just a way to justify that your choices or behavior or decisions are OK, but the other person's aren't.

It's not easy, but playing the 50/50 fair and square game does not help people get along. The only successful way I know is when people are willing to give their 100% best effort to something. That often gets the ball rolling. And, the other people either start doing the same and you make progress, or they don't and you move on to find someone else who will do the 100% effort as well.

BTW, you also have to remember that 100% effort isn't equal effort because everybody's 100% abilities are different depending on all kinds of factors day to day.

But, being called a murderer by some is their label. It doesn't have to make it true for the person being labelled. And, boy does it do wonders when others can publicly see that you can handle another person's rage and be willing to calmy and rationally offer to share your side and hear theirs if they would like to.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> One of the first steps to finding compromise and a way forward is to be able to let those you oppose say things that rattle you to your core and that you vehemently disagree with.
> 
> Then, you have to be willing to hear the rest of what they say.
> 
> Then, you have to be willing to say your side and try and present it in a way that allows for hopefully them to hear something and not shut your words out.
> 
> It's not easy to listen and hear. Lots of people just take turns talking, and wait for a break so they can jump in and have their say. That's not the same as hearing and trying.
> 
> I'm not a believer in I will as long as you do either. That's just a way to justify that your choices or behavior or decisions are OK, but the other person's aren't.
> 
> It's not easy, but playing the 50/50 fair and square game does not help people get along. The only successful way I know is when people are willing to give their 100% best effort to something. That often gets the ball rolling. And, the other people either start doing the same and you make progress, or they don't and you move on to find someone else who will do the 100% effort as well.
> 
> BTW, you also have to remember that 100% effort isn't equal effort because everybody's 100% abilities are different depending on all kinds of factors day to day.
> 
> But, being called a murderer by some is their label. It doesn't have to make it true for the person being labelled. And, boy does it do wonders when others can publicly see that you can handle another person's rage and be willing to calmy and rationally offer to share your side and hear theirs if they would like to.


See that all would be your opinion. None of it has be another persons truth. Therefore you can think being called a murderer is a good basis for a discussion . I don't believe that is even remotely true.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. I do not believe in your god.


 And that's ok.
He believes in you and loves you, and all of His children.:grouphug:









> Therefore you can think being called a murderer is a good basis for a discussion . I don't believe that is even remotely true.


Me either. Having recently faced the fact that I am one myself, killing my child, the sweetest girl I ever had, I can tell you that it cut me to my soul.
All I could do is ask forgiveness and resolve to never let that happen again as long as I walk this earth.


----------



## Woolieface

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i think some would also consider their ability to care for that child.... Being unable to care for oneself would be pretty scary place to be when a person discovers there will soon be another needing so much. There is a difference between an easy way out and the only way out.


This could double as the rationale behind euthanizing unwanted puppies and kittens in shelters. We're approaching a point when human life has the equivalent value in society as a dog's. I'm horrified. 

It's perfectly legal to take your newborn to a police station, fire station or hospital and surrender the child for adoption without repercussions. Nobody HAS to choose death.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. I do not believe in your god.


Yeah, well, I do not believe in your... um.. ah... Creator??? or whatever it is that guides you...


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> See that all would be your opinion. None of it has be another persons truth. Therefore you can think being called a murderer is a good basis for a discussion . I don't believe that is even remotely true.


I don't think being called a murderer is a good basis for a discussion. But, if that's the starter to the conversation I don't think it has to be the end of the discussion either.

If I have a friend or relative who's spouse starts out discussions about marital problems with, let's just get a divorce, I would give them the same thoughts I posted above about how get a conversation on track to something productive.

If it's a conversation worth having or allowing to happen then sometimes it's worth the effort to try and salvage it even when someone tries to throw in a really horrible hurtful statement.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> Can we leave religion out of this? It has nothing to do with the highly edited video that was the original topic of this thread.


You know...it's your side that keeps bringing it up. Do not expect us to read our faith being used as a weapon against us by those who don't know it, and not correct the error.


----------



## painterswife

The abortion conversation is a conversation worth having. It just is not worth having it with people who have prejudged you. Abortion is personal and some of the members here have proven it is not a safe place to share no matter how you try create reasons that it is or should be.


----------



## farmrbrown

So I take it we are not worthy, in your opinion, of being part of the discussion?

It's funny when the "judging" shoe is worn on the other foot.........


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> So I take it we are not worthy, in your opinion, of being part of the discussion?
> 
> It's funny when the "judging" shoe is worn on the other foot.........


I did not say worthy. I did not even imply it. I said not safe for the person sharing.


----------



## farmrbrown

Woolieface said:


> This could double as the rationale behind euthanizing unwanted puppies and kittens in shelters. *We're approaching a point when human life has the equivalent value in society as a dog's. I'm horrified. *
> 
> It's perfectly legal to take your newborn to a police station, fire station or hospital and surrender the child for adoption without repercussions. Nobody HAS to choose death.


I'm horrified that it isn't.

That picture was of my little girl.
God, do I miss her.

Please dear Lord, let them see the beauty of your creation.....


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> It just is not worth having it with people who have prejudged you.


I must have misunderstood this part of your post, I'm sorry.


----------



## Woolieface

farmrbrown said:


> I'm horrified that it isn't.
> 
> That picture was of my little girl.
> God, do I miss her.
> 
> Please dear Lord, let them see the beauty of your creation.....


Society might honestly be at a point already where humans are cared for less. It's that "overpopulation" thing. 

She was a beautiful girl by, the way  I love dogs. They remind us of how humanity should be. They love you no matter what.


----------



## Irish Pixie

I haven't mocked your religion, don't mock my lack of one.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> You know...it's your side that keeps bringing it up. Do not expect us to read our faith being used as a weapon against us by those who don't know it, and not correct the error.


I don't have a "side" I only have my opinion. I don't bring up religion because it is meaningless to me. Do you understand?


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't have a "side" I only have my opinion. I don't bring up religion because it is meaningless to me. Do you understand?


But you have brought it up... you brought in the stoning argument back in the beginning of the thread that led to us both having posts deleted. Others who agree with you have posted similar arguments using the Christian faith.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> But you have brought it up... you brought in the stoning argument back in the beginning of the thread that led to us both having posts deleted. Others who agree with you have posted similar arguments using the Christian faith.


Don't mock/patronize my lack of religion and I won't disrespect yours.. do you understand?


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't mock/patronize my lack of religion and I won't disrespect yours.. do you understand?


Nobody has mocked you for disbelief. I'd like to see where that happened. If you deem any mention of the Christian faith by a Christian as mockery I can't sympathize. It's absolutely... without question....my right to mention my faith, which is the cornerstone of all my decision making. 

And as for you making the decision to be the first to mention my faith and then expect no response in kind is beyond crossing the line in, my opinion.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't have a "side" I only have my opinion. I don't bring up religion because it is meaningless to me. Do you understand?


Religion is not meaningless to anyone in my opinion. Everyone has faith in some type of belief.

People either believe in God, it Jesus, or Mohammed or buhhda or any number of other higher powers or a combination of them. Even a belief in no diety at all. Just a pure belief in science whether the big bang or otherwise it evolution, micro or macro. Even a belief in aliens being the source of life or souls etc.

No one knows with certainty what is correct. Some people don't care one way or another.

But all beliefs are based on people having faith that their understanding of interpreting life and how we all came into being is the best most sensible and truest answer. Therefore, everyone has faith in something and has assigned a level of meaning to all other faiths they have encountered as a way of interpreting and understanding how their own faith fits into the context of those they share the world with.

Meaningless is not the best word to use when expressing to someone you don't value their faith in the same way, IMO.


----------



## Patchouli

Irish Pixie said:


> Can we leave religion out of this? It has nothing to do with the highly edited video that was the original topic of this thread.



Since the video was made by religious people in order to sway people to their religious beliefs about abortion and most of the people supporting the video here do so for religious reasons I don't see how you can remove it from the equation.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't have a "side" I only have my opinion. I don't bring up religion because it is meaningless to me. Do you understand?


But that's quite unfair to the ones whose opinions/decisions are guided by religion.

And you don't want to listen to anyone who's coming from that place. 

And that's the end of any hope of a true debate/discussion.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't have a "side" I only have my opinion. I don't bring up religion because it is meaningless to me. Do you understand?


Perhaps, we could start somewhere else.
What does life mean to you and at what point, beginning or end...or ever, does it become meaningless to you?


----------



## farmrbrown

What I saw on the video was the callous discussion of trafficking in the human organs of dead babies being discussed over wine at lunch.
Was there something else you wanted to add to it?


----------



## Txsteader

Sometimes those who scream for tolerance end up being the most *in*tolerant.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> What I saw on the video was the callous discussion of trafficking in the human organs of dead babies being discussed over wine at lunch.
> Was there something else you wanted to add to it?


That it was based on a lie, and nothing was said that could even remotely be linked to trafficking (or selling which is the title of this thread) human organs. You and your ilk heard what you wanted to hear.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Sometimes those who scream for tolerance end up being the most *in*tolerant.


And those that claim to be so pious and nonjudgmental simply aren't.  They're hateful, judgmental, and hypocritical.


----------



## Tiempo

farmrbrown said:


> Well, I'm sorry if you feel that love is mocking and patronizing.
> I hope one day you find out what love is......


Here is an example of patronizing for those who asked, that second line.


----------



## farmrbrown

Fortunately, as I've said before, you can learn from any example, even a bad one.
The hate and poison spewed out towards those that love life and love each other should be a lesson here.
Love conquers all.


----------



## Tiempo

Telling someone they don't know what love is because they don't share your beliefs is not showing love.


----------



## wr

The topic has remained relatively civil and if you want the thread to remain open, it would be best to keep it that way.


----------



## Evons hubby

oops, I replied while WR was deleting a post.


----------



## Nevada

Do conservatives have a plan to provide similar services offered by Planned Parenthood if it is successfully defunded? I've never been involved in abortion services with them, but I know that my girlfriend got affordable gyno services there.


----------



## gibbsgirl

If govt funding truly has nothing to do with financing abortions, then the absence of the financing should effect nothing.

Women's health can also be provided separately from elective abortions. Similarly to how specialty dental services are frequently offered by specialists for surgeries or orthodontia.


----------



## Tricky Grama

FarmerKat said:


> So what you are saying is that it is okay to kill disabled people so that we don't have to deal with them?
> 
> We have several friends who have adopted children .... And only two of those families have children without health issues. These two families were able/willing to accept an open adoption. You know, the type of adoption where the biological mother gets to spend fun time with her kid but does not bear any responsibility for raising him/her. The families who did not think they could handle open adoption have children who are deaf, mute, have Down syndrome, have autism and a child who needed multiple surgeries just so that he can walk. I think they are all considerably better off than dead - I will even venture out to say they are living happy lives.


There ya go. 
Just curious, how many of those who adopted are progressive, non-conservatives? Like rep Bachman who fostered 30 something unwanted kids? 
Oh, wait, she's conservative...


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I haven't mocked your religion, don't mock my lack of one.



lol... dish it but that's all... Sky Daddy???

Wasn't it you that said that or BFF???


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I can only speak for myself. I have no problem with abortion under 12 weeks. I would have difficulty in the weeks from 12 -22. I would have to have a medical reason for it after 22 weeks.
> 
> I don't wish abortions to be the easy out. I also don't believe that for most it is. I understand that for some it is a no go at any point from pre-fertilization to a known still born death.
> 
> The problem is that it is not my body and not my choice. That fetus requires a womb and that womb is in someone else's body. I can no more force that person to carry that fetus to term than I can force another person to supply me with a blood transfusion or part of their liver so that I can live.


I admire your honesty.

I could say I wonder about abortion being 'ok' about the stage of embryos that can be frozen...b/c I firmly believe the soul is not yet there, simply b/c I cannot be frozen, thawed after yrs & be viable. Nor can a 8 wk fetus, nor a newborn. 

Not sure if anyone agrees w/that, it just seems logical-TO ME. 
Other reason is that I don't think God would let all those souls have no chance for life that are the result of spontaneous abortions, happening very frequently, sometimes to women who don't even know they are pregnant, it's so early.

Problem is, elective abortion is nearly impossible that early b/c if you don't yet know you're pregnant, you don't yet know you don't want to be.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> lol... dish it but that's all... Sky Daddy???
> 
> Wasn't it you that said that or BFF???


I dont know who said "sky daddy" but some how it sounds better than "daddio, laddio and spook" referring to the trinity. Silly beatniks, cant do anything with them!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Woolieface said:


> He actually also advocated for "after birth abortions" up to two years old.


Ah, yes. I had forgotten the age, wow, those progressives! What will they advocate next!
I bet he helps out at charity hospital nurseries too.


----------



## J.T.M.

Txsteader said:


> Sometimes those who scream for tolerance end up being the most *in*tolerant.


..... This threads still going !!!!! eeekkk 
PS:


----------



## gapeach

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont know who said "sky daddy" but some how it sounds better than "daddio, laddio and spook" referring to the trinity. Silly beatniks, cant do anything with them!


It is not only disrespectful but sacreligious too and the people who use this term know it. They don't care, either.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, yes. I had forgotten the age, wow, those progressives! What will they advocate next!
> I bet he helps out at charity hospital nurseries too.


That is not those progressive. That is an individual not even a group.


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> It is not only disrespectful but sacreligious too and the people who use this term know it. They don't care, either.


If you notice it only gets used when some Christian mocks and puts down those that don't believe in religion on purpose. If they don't act Christian then don't expect others to respect them or their version of what is being Christian.


----------



## Woolieface

There's a problem when someone can't mention that they hope another will learn what love is but it's fine to accuse others of being hateful, hypocritical and judgmental.

There's a problem when someone can bring up religion in a negative context and no one can reply in defense of it.

And there's just all out censorship when we can't express ourselves, period.

I haven't seen anyone whine for moderation because their faith has been mocked, even when it was. I certainly won't. That's free speech....but I won't shut up about my faith either.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> lol... dish it but that's all... Sky Daddy???
> 
> Wasn't it you that said that or BFF???



Neither that I'm aware of and I don't know that Bearfootfarm has ever disclosed their faith in any way so it seems kinda silly to make assumptions.


----------



## Woolieface

wr said:


> Neither that I'm aware of and I don't know that Bearfootfarm has ever disclosed their faith in any way so it seems kinda silly to make assumptions.


Yes, the term was used early on in this thread by Irish Pixie. That and some replies to it were deleted.


----------



## wr

Woolieface said:


> There's a problem when someone can't mention that they hope another will learn what love is but it's fine to accuse others of being hateful, hypocritical and judgmental.
> 
> There's a problem when someone can bring up religion in a negative context and no one can reply in defense of it.
> 
> And there's just all out censorship when we can't express ourselves, period.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone whine for moderation because their faith has been mocked, even when it was. I certainly won't. That's free speech....but I won't shut up about my faith either.



It's my understanding that you are not a mod so I'm not sure how you would know who is reporting posts. 

Could you please clarify? 

I'm not sure if you're aware that HT is not a Christian based group and all members are entitled to post. You're certainly entitled to post your opinions but do are other members.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> If you notice it only gets used when some Christian mocks and puts down those that don't believe in religion on purpose. If they don't act Christian then don't expect others to respect them or their version of what is being Christian.


x10. I don't don't show disrespect until I'm disrespected. Don't patronize me with your religion and it's all good.


----------



## Woolieface

wr said:


> You're certainly entitled to post your opinions but do are other members.


The above is all I'm asking for....

The public complaining is what I was refering to 

"don't mock my non-belief"

"leave religion out of it"

I haven't seen anyone publically declare that anyone should leave their non belief out of it.

The moderation has stated a guideline in this thread that there is to be no mocking of belief or unbelief nor any "patronizing" posts of non believers. Several posts have been deleted because of this or that which is unnecesary in free communication, if you ask me.

The intitating of that situation began with the "sky daddy" comment. Such posts by non believers are common and if they want to bring that up, fine...but we also have the right to respond. I am aware that it's not a Christian site...that doesn't mean I leave my faith or freedom to express it a the door.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> Yes, the term was used early on in this thread by Irish Pixie. That and some replies to it were deleted.


Yup, I did. After I was patronized for being non christian. If you disrespect me, I will disrespect you. If you don't mock/patronize me, I will do the same for you. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Your belief does not make you any better than me. 

My slur was deleted as were slurs directed at my non belief. That's done and over. Today was a new round of disrespect aimed at my non christianity. I asked repeatedly for you (collective you) to stop. 

Today I _asked_ if you'd leave religion out of it. Rather than be polite you (again collective you) patronized me. Txsteader isn't overtly patronizing and still makes her point. 

My disbelief is always out of it.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, I did. After I was patronized for being non christian. If you disrespect me, I will disrespect you. If you don't mock/patronize me, I will do the same for you. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Your belief does not make you any better than me.
> 
> My slur was deleted as were slurs directed at my non belief. That's done and over. Today was a new round of disrespect aimed at my non christianity. I asked repeatedly for you (collective you) to stop.
> 
> Today I _asked_ if you'd leave religion out of it. Rather than be polite you (again collective you) patronized me. Txsteader isn't overtly patronizing and still makes her point.
> 
> My disbelief is always out of it.


I'm not complaining about your retaliations, your lack of belief or actually anything else about you, so you can relax.

I've never stated nor believed that I'm better than anyone...

I've asked a couple of times for you to show me how you're being disrespected but you didn't reply. How you handle the pereived disrespect is up to you. My posts were about how that is handled in moderation.

I won't leave my faith out of my opinions any more than you will leave your lack thereof out of yours (it is a part of it by default) and I really don't see the reason to silence anyone for anything.


----------



## FeralFemale

My post was not a personal attack. It was factual and very relevant to the current conversation in the thread. I felt the need to relate those facts because there were claims that particular persons on this board had not been using religious slurs when they have indeed been using them. Why are some folks on this board given such wide latitude? I've seen some folks post things 10x worse on a regular basis than I just posted.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> I'm not complaining about your retaliations, your lack of belief or actually anything else about you, so you can relax.
> 
> I've never stated nor believed that I'm better than anyone...
> 
> I've asked a couple of times for you to show me how you're being disrespected but you didn't reply. How you handle the pereived disrespect is up to you. My posts were about how that is handled in moderation.
> 
> I won't leave my faith out of my opinions any more than you will leave your lack thereof out of yours (it is a part of it by default) and I really don't see the reason to silence anyone for anything.


I don't want anything silenced. What I want is not to be patronized by christians.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't want anything silenced. What I want is not to be patronized by christians.


Well, as I stated right off..."patronizing" is pretty subjective. Would you like to see your definition of it silenced or not? If not, then do like I do... respond in whatever way expresses your feeling on that. If you do want it silenced...yeah, that I have a problem with.


----------



## kasilofhome

Joe blow post a bad per rule post....result deleted
It is quoted..... normally that also is deleted by a MOD yet it stands
Why ..... confused


----------



## Guest

Woolieface said:


> Well, as I stated right off..."patronizing" is pretty subjective. Would you like to see your definition of it silenced or not? If not, then do like I do... respond in whatever way expresses your feeling on that. If you do want it silenced...yeah, that I have a problem with.


Amazing ain't it, you may begin to think it is conspiratorial, for only a couple play that card as an argument closer. I agree with FF above, moderation does seem to bend towards those few, just my opinion and observation.

Shalom


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> If you notice it *only gets used* when some Christian mocks and puts down those that don't believe in religion on purpose. If they don't act Christian then don't expect others to respect them or their version of what is being Christian.


[bolding mine]

Are you sure??? Or does anyone receive license if they can act like a religious statement mocks their beliefs.... I'm sure I can point these out but - hey - What's the point. He said - She said...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *I noticed that you like to quote select items from the Bible*, why would you attempt to strike one person down with the above verse and then close your eyes to the one that says "Thou SHALL NOT kill." I am pretty sure this commandment is why many followers of Christ have a problem with Abortion.


I notice you want to *follow *select quotes.
It should be all or none

It's also another example of you wanting everyone to follow your religion, even when you say it's OK to ignore parts yourself


----------



## Tricky Grama

Tiempo said:


> Here is an example of patronizing for those who asked, that second line.


Ya know, there are a couple, maybe 3 on this board who are Pagans. 
There's a few who are not Christians. 
We ALL have lots of discussions and I don't recall the mocking, the dissing, the nauseous comments EVER coming from them.
Unlike a bunch on this thread. Wonder why they hate?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> Ya know, there are a couple, maybe 3 on this board who are Pagans.
> There's a few who are not Christians.
> We ALL have lots of discussions and I don't recall the mocking, the dissing, the nauseous comments EVER coming from them.
> Unlike a bunch on this thread. Wonder why they hate?


An ironic question coming from a person who posts so hatefully to those she disagrees with.


----------



## arabian knight

Tricky Grama said:


> Ya know, there are a couple, maybe 3 on this board who are Pagans.
> There's a few who are not Christians.
> We ALL have lots of discussions and I don't recall the mocking, the dissing, the nauseous comments EVER coming from them.
> Unlike a bunch on this thread. Wonder why they hate?


 I sure don't know why, but some on here sure are getting right on the border of getting too personal that is for sure. And this whole thread now is going right down the dumper FAST.,


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> If govt funding truly has nothing to do with financing abortions, then the absence of the financing *should effect nothing*.
> 
> Women's health can also be provided separately from elective abortions. Similarly to how specialty dental services are frequently offered by specialists for surgeries or orthodontia.


Abortions are only about 4% of what PP does.
Cutting funding for the other 96% affects quite a lot


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> Abortions are only about 4% of what PP does.
> Cutting funding for the other 96% affects quite a lot


cuts on the kale salad and wine lunches might need a reduction...


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> That is not those progressive. That is an individual not even a group.


However, there are several noted psychologists who advocate 'abortion' up to 2 mo. of age. As in already born. Have a pretty sizable following. Kinda a group.
I'll drop a hint-they're NOT conservatives.

And btw, Holgen's writings were added to as well as lauded by several progressives, as in 'group'.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> cuts on the kale salad and wine lunches might need a reduction...


The liars who made the video paid for that set-up


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> cuts on the kale salad and wine lunches might need a reduction...


The lying video makers pay for lunches.


----------



## Tricky Grama

FeralFemale said:


> My post was not a personal attack. It was factual and very relevant to the current conversation in the thread. I felt the need to relate those facts because there were claims that particular persons on this board had not been using religious slurs when they have indeed been using them. Why are some folks on this board given such wide latitude? I've seen some folks post things 10x worse on a regular basis than I just posted.


Post of the week award.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> It is not only disrespectful but *sacreligious* too and the people who use this term know it. They don't care, either.


It's "sacreligious" (sic) to have a pork chop for dinner *if *you're Muslim

If you're not Muslim, it's meaningless


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> There's a problem when someone can't mention that they hope another will learn what love is but it's fine to* accuse* others of being hateful, hypocritical and judgmental.


It's not an "accusation".
It's reading comprehension vs deliberate condesenscion


----------



## arabian knight

Tricky Grama said:


> However, there are several noted psychologists who advocate 'abortion' up to 2 mo. of age. As in already born. Have a pretty sizable following. Kinda a group.
> I'll drop a hint-they're NOT conservatives.
> 
> And btw, Holgen's writings were added to as well as lauded by several progressives, as in 'group'.


Was not a post made awhile back that said PP does NOT receive government funding?
Now what is this I read IF cutting back on FEDERAL FUNDING some 96% will not get monies? Now I guess that means P IS funding some by the government Hmmmmm
Can''t have it both ways. They get SOME that is now posted well what is it. IS PP receiving government funds or not. LOL wow what a popcorn eating night this has been.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's "sacreligious" (sic) to have a pork chop for dinner *if *you're Muslim
> 
> If you're not Muslim,* it's meaningless*


I find that offensive, but my skin is thick enough,,,


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> *Was not a post made awhile back that said PP does NOT receive government funding?*
> Now what is this I read IF cutting back on FEDERAL FUNDING some 96% will not get monies? Now I guess that means P IS funding some by the government Hmmmmm
> Can''t have it both ways. They get SOME that is now posted well what is it. IS PP receiving government funds or not. LOL wow what a popcorn eating night this has been.


They get no Federal funding *for abortions*

It's not that hard to simply scroll back and confirm things rather than making false assumptions.

It's pointless to have to repeat everything


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> I find that offensive, but my skin is thick enough,,,


I'm not sure why you choose to be offended since I wasn't talking to or about you, but it's not a big surprise.


----------



## Marshloft

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I dont know who said "sky daddy" but some how it sounds better than "daddio, laddio and spook" referring to the trinity. Silly beatniks, cant do anything with them!


 Never seen or heard those terms before. But I can picture it now.
Daddio nudges Laddio and say's, hey, have spook pass me an angel light will ya?
Even Sky Daddy has a sense of humor.


----------



## farmrbrown

For the record, I never intended my words to be condescending, patronizing or demeaning in any way. That was the farthest thing from my mind.
When my God and my faith were compared to bovine excrement, I thought about how to respond.
I was taught by the best, so I followed His example. I responded with the offering of love, agape in Greek, and hope.

I was still naive, when I realized it was ME that was being referred to in the posts that followed. I don't think I've ever had that reaction before. I simply wanted to say that my God and I will love you anyway, no matter what you believe.
If anyone was offended by that, I ask your forgiveness. I'm sorry.
My heart goes out to the mothers that face such a terrible decision. If I could, I would take their children in myself. If I had the means, I would give them everything I own to house, raise and protect them.
I only wish it were within my power. All I know to do is turn it over to the One who has all power and ask His help.

The Author said it better than I ever could......

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13&version=WE


1 Corinthians 13Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)

13 If I talk with the tongues of men and even of angels, but if I do not love people, then I am only like the sound of a big horn or a loud bell.

2 If I speak words from God, if I can understand all secrets, and know everything, if I can move mountains by believing, but if I do not love people, I am nothing, even though I can do all of these things.

3 If I give away all I have, and if I give my body to be burned, but if I do not love people, I get nothing out of it.

4 Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. Love is not proud and does not boast.

5 Love does not do things that are not nice. Love does not just think of itself. Love does not get angry. Love holds no wrong feelings in the heart.

6 Love is not glad when people do wrong things. But it is always glad when they do right.

7 Love forgives everything. Love is always trusting, and always hoping, and never gives up.

8 Love never ends. The gift of speaking words from God will end. The gift of speaking in different tongues or languages will stop. The gift of knowing many things will end.

9 Now we know only a little, and we can speak only a little of God's words.

10 But when everything becomes perfect, that part will come to an end.

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child. I understood like a child. I thought like a child. But when I became a man, I stopped doing things like a child.

12 Now it is like looking in a looking-glass which does not make things clear. We cannot see and understand things plainly. But when things become perfect, then we shall fully know and understand everything, just as God knows.

13 These three things will remain for ever. They are faith, hope, and love. And love is the greatest of them.


----------



## Marshloft

gapeach said:


> It is not only disrespectful but sacreligious too and the people who use this term know it. They don't care, either.


 A christian doesn't have to be offended ya know.
We do have a choice. I choose to not be offended.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Trying to rationalize that the feds don't finance abortions because it's a separate line item cracks me up.

It's as nonsensical as some of the arguments that try and pretend we don't support certain regimes, etc globally with financing or indirectly with aid that falls into their hands.

Providers that offer abortions are financed by whomever they get those financial resources from. The designated and legally allowed uses are just a dog and pony show.

Planned parenthood received govt funding, so govt funding is supporting all their services.

Personally, I don't think the feds have any business financing healthcare services outside of perhaps the federal military.

If state or local places want to offer healthcare, that's on them. But, its not the feds place to do so.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I notice you want to *follow *select quotes.
> It should be all or none
> 
> It's also another example of you wanting everyone to follow your religion, even when you say it's OK to ignore parts yourself


No, you are making assumptions, I want to follow ALL of the teachings found in the Bible, however, I am human and a sinner. If I find that I am doing something that is contrary to those teachings then I will ask for help to correct it. 

And no... I do not specifically try to get everyone to follow it, I have enough trouble with that myself. When God gives one to Christ, Christ, through an irresistible calling will bring that one close, that is His realm, not mine.


----------



## Patchouli

Tricky Grama said:


> I admire your honesty.
> 
> I could say I wonder about abortion being 'ok' about the stage of embryos that can be frozen...b/c I firmly believe the soul is not yet there, simply b/c I cannot be frozen, thawed after yrs & be viable. Nor can a 8 wk fetus, nor a newborn.
> 
> Not sure if anyone agrees w/that, it just seems logical-TO ME.
> Other reason is that I don't think God would let all those souls have no chance for life that are the result of spontaneous abortions, happening very frequently, sometimes to women who don't even know they are pregnant, it's so early.
> 
> Problem is, elective abortion is nearly impossible that early b/c if you don't yet know you're pregnant, you don't yet know you don't want to be.


Since God is omniscient seems to me if he doesn't bother handing out souls to frozen embryos or fetuses that will be naturally aborted he wouldn't put them in the fetuses he knows will be medically aborted either. Unless he just likes being cruel?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> No, you are *making assumptions*, I want to follow ALL of the teachings found in the Bible, however, I am human and a sinner. If I find that I am doing something that is contrary to those teachings then I will ask for help to correct it.


I made no assumptions

You specifically stated it was OK that they lied.

There's no point in trying to spin it another way now


----------



## Shine

Patchouli said:


> Since God is omniscient seems to me if he doesn't bother handing out souls to frozen embryos or fetuses that will be naturally aborted he wouldn't put them in the fetuses he knows will be medically aborted either. Unless he just likes being cruel?


God knows no sin. So - you're missing the mark on your supposition.


----------



## gibbsgirl

So by that logic, do you think God doesn't bother putting souls into others that will have short lives and/or painful deaths?

Not saying you do. It's cool if you don't answer.

I'm just saying that cause that's where my logic went following your post.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not sure why you choose to be offended since I wasn't talking to or about you, but it's not a big surprise.


This is an open discussion forum. You comment on other posts not directed at you, as I recall recently with my discussion with patchouli. If you wish to censor me, do so if you have the power. Your white wash criticism is expected.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I made no assumptions
> 
> You specifically stated it was OK that they lied.
> 
> There's no point in trying to spin it another way now


I am not in control of "them" - I do not know what was actually done. God uses us all for His Glory, it sincerely could have been just that. OR, it is highly possibly that much of what was said was closer to the truth than many want to admit. When you factor profit into human nature then all bets are off...

I am not in control of everything. I do not have the ALL of the facts at hand here, I have some but not enough to absolutely know the truth. 

Do you have all of the absolute truth regarding what happened or is there ANY assumption on your part? Is your knowledge regarding this situation pure?


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> God knows no sin. So - you're missing the mark on your supposition.


Cruelty is a sin? He perpetrated a whole heck of a lot of it in the Old Testament. Job comes to mind.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> cuts on the kale salad and wine lunches might need a reduction...





gibbsgirl said:


> So by that logic, do you think God doesn't bother putting souls into others that will have short lives and/or painful deaths?
> 
> Not saying you do. It's cool if you don't answer.
> 
> I'm just saying that cause that's where my logic went following your post.


God woul make Zomnies because they will have painful deaths? Your line of logic does not follow .


----------



## Patchouli

gibbsgirl said:


> So by that logic, do you think God doesn't bother putting souls into others that will have short lives and/or painful deaths?
> 
> Not saying you do. It's cool if you don't answer.
> 
> I'm just saying that cause that's where my logic went following your post.


Was that for me? Tricky Grama was the one who proposed the theory that God doesn't bother putting souls in frozen embryos or babies that will be naturally aborted.  I was just taking her theory to the next logical step.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> This is an open discussion forum. You comment on other posts not directed at you, as I recall recently with my discussion with patchouli. If you wish to censor me, do so if you have the power. Your white wash criticism is expected.


That still doesn't explain why you would be "offended", other than it's just a role you choose to play.

Many talk about wanting "open discussions" up until anyone disagrees, and then suddenly it's "stifling" or "censoring", and they start lashing out.

It's quite predictable


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I am not in control of "them" - I do not know what was actually done.





> Do you have all of the absolute truth regarding what happened or is there ANY assumption on your part? Is your knowledge regarding this situation pure?


Did you not read their own words?:

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf



> -Two *actors posing* as Fetal Tissue Procurement Company (âBuyerâ)


Does that really have to be explained?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Patchouli said:


> Was that for me? Tricky Grama was the one who proposed the theory that God doesn't bother putting souls in frozen embryos or babies that will be naturally aborted.  I was just taking her theory to the next logical step.


It was me doing the next logic step in that logic in my mind to. That's why I didn't quote either of you and said I wasn't saying that I believed that's how yallmust feel.

It's also why I said it was cool if you guys didn't answer. Cause I don't wasn't meaning that t was a challenge or anything. I was just saying my next thoughts after reading where I thought might that logic would lead.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> That still doesn't explain why you would be "offended", other than it's just a role you choose to play.
> 
> Many talk about wanting "open discussions" up until anyone disagrees, and then suddenly it's "stifling" or "censoring", and they start lashing out.
> 
> It's quite predictable


Yes you and I and everyone else can be predictable, I bolded the part that could be construed as offensive to me. So you feel I am playing a part, now are you treading on being condescending with your word play. I have been put down, demeaned, and criticized by you more than once. I find a great deal of humor in your factual banter though, so carry on with bashing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Yes you and I and everyone else can be predictable, I bolded the part that could be construed as offensive to me. So you feel I am playing a part, now are you treading on being condescending with your word play. *I have been put down, demeaned, and criticized by you more than once.* I find a great deal of humor in your factual banter though, so carry on with bashing.


You are playing a part if you *chose* to be offended by a simple statement of fact that had nothing to do with you at all.

Now you are choosing to continue with the pointless drama

I cannot control how you *choose* to feel, or that you choose to play the victim

On a side note, did you notice your post was # 666 on the thread?


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> Cruelty is a sin? He perpetrated a whole heck of a lot of it in the Old Testament. Job comes to mind.


If we're going to go there, I certainly hope we all have the chance to keep our responses up on the board.

I'm not sure why Job comes to mind...Satan sought him out to prove that a man will turn his back from God if they are under enough adversity. God sought to prove Satan's attack on Job's integrity wrong and allowed Satan to wage his war. God won...Job knew what we should all know, that every good thing we have is from Him and it is His to give and to take. In the end, Job was blessed for his integrity far above his original situation.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> You are playing a part if you *chose* to be offended by a simple statement of fact that had nothing to do with you at all.
> 
> Now you are choosing to continue with the pointless drama
> 
> I cannot control how you *choose* to feel, or that you choose to play the victim
> 
> On a side note, did you notice your post was # 666 on the thread?


So you and your running mates should quit being offended because you choose to play that roll, for no-one can control how you feel. 666 as in the Torah, Tanakh, Kabal, numerology, KJV?


----------



## Patchouli

gibbsgirl said:


> It was me doing the next logic step in that logic in my mind to. That's why I didn't quote either of you and said I wasn't saying that I believed that's how yallmust feel.
> 
> It's also why I said it was cool if you guys didn't answer. Cause I don't wasn't meaning that t was a challenge or anything. I was just saying my next thoughts after reading where I thought might that logic would lead.


Personally I don't believe in God and so I don't believe he puts souls in anyone or anything.  I don't know what I think about souls in general. I do think that most of the debate about abortion in the end comes down to a dance around that subject though. 

When does a fetus have a soul? A personality? Become a real human? Some religions say not until they draw their first breath. Some at conception. Most are somewhere in between. Science has no answers on that question. Anyone who has ever carried a child to term knows they do have personality before they are born. All three of mine were different before they were born. Different activity levels, sleep cycles, etc. They each definitely had a very distinctive personality when they were born. Maybe that's why most people across the spectrum on abortion agree that it should stop at "quickening". At that time we feel it kick and move and start to show us who it really is as an individual.

But if you believe in a kind God, a loving and omniscient God it seems to me you would also believe he doesn't waste a soul on a baby he knows will never be born. Or one that is born only to die shortly thereafter. That Heaven is full of millions and millions of babies who never made it past the first trimester. 

That is tenuous ground though because I am sure that those mothers who lost babies close to or at term or shortly after birth hope the opposite: that when they get to Heaven their child will be waiting for them whole and well. 

I have no answers.


----------



## Shine

It is funny. People here are acting like they are "offended" so that they can win their argument. This world is not Heaven, bad things happen, sometimes good people do bad things because they are not comfortable with God's pace. Yes, it hurts me if they lie. But, again, I am not in charge of them. 

You are very good with your words, very astute.

It would be my hope that you never die, but - again, I will probably be sanctioned for that desire or you will be offended.

It is this and just this: Forget about the video, what if you were aborted? What if your parent was in such a condition or situation that she just said - Oh, this is too much - get rid of this baby?

Sit down and ask yourself, is the world better with you in it or would your impact upon this world have made it a better place?

Please just answer the questions and don't redirect, I would love for you to answer each concern in this single post.

I wish you well.


----------



## Patchouli

Woolieface said:


> If we're going to go there, I certainly hope we all have the chance to keep our responses up on the board.
> 
> I'm not sure why Job comes to mind...Satan sought him out to prove that a man will turn his back from God if they are under enough adversity. God sought to prove Satan's attack on Job's integrity wrong and allowed Satan to wage his war. God won...Job knew what we should all know, that every good thing we have is from Him and it is His to give and to take. In the end, Job was blessed for his integrity far above his original situation.



Job 30:20 I cry to you for help and you do not answer me; I stand, and you only look at me. 
*21 * You have http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Job 30.20–21#footnote1turned cruel to me; 
with the might of your hand you http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Job 30.20–21#footnote2persecute me. 



Say what you want about the cosmic struggle to Job the loss of his children and all he had was cruel and painful. All to win a bet.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I believe in God. I believe unborn children have souls at conception.

I don't understand why God allows as much suffering including in death and illness. But, I believe God gave us freewill because it was important to him that people learn to do the right things by choice.

That doesn't explain it all to me. But, I also think he doesn't want us to understand everything, because that would make our faith unnecessary.

Anyway, that's a little of how I feel and why.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> It is funny. People here are acting like they are "offended" so that they can win their argument. This world is not Heaven, bad things happen, sometimes good people do bad things because they are not comfortable with God's pace. Yes, it hurts me if they lie. But, again, I am not in charge of them.
> 
> You are very good with your words, very astute.
> 
> It would be my hope that you never die, but - again, I will probably be sanctioned for that desire or you will be offended.
> 
> It is this and just this: Forget about the video, what if you were aborted? What if your parent was in such a condition or situation that she just said - Oh, this is too much - get rid of this baby?
> 
> Sit down and ask yourself, *is the world better with you in it or would your impact upon this world have made it a better place?*
> 
> Please just answer the questions and don't redirect, I would love for you to answer each concern in this single post.
> 
> I wish you well.


first I would have to define what would make the world a "better" place? Mother Nature and Father Time are both rough old buzzards to deal with, but they aren't going away any time soon. 
In the fur what it's worth section my birth mother did find herself in that very situation once, I never got to meet my older sister.


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> Job 30:20 I cry to you for help and you do not answer me; I stand, and you only look at me.
> *21 * You have http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Job 30.20–21#footnote1turned cruel to me;
> with the might of your hand you http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Job 30.20–21#footnote2persecute me.
> 
> 
> 
> Say what you want about the cosmic struggle to Job the loss of his children and all he had was cruel and painful. All to win a bet.


Job did what we all do in seriously adverse situations.... we ask "why me?" However, he never laid blame on God....he never forfeited his integrity. Lots of painful things happen to all of us in this world. It's a fallen world. Evil attacks us all.

It wasn't to "win a bet"...whether or not you see the greater picture, it was for Job that Job was allowed to be given this trial by fire. It was to silence the accusations of the enemy against him.

We're shortsighted creatures...all the more so if we are not expecting to experience an eternity of any kind. Faith is not a matter of believing He simply exists..it's a matter of trusting His vast plans that we can not see the far end of.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> So you and your running mates should* quit being offended *because you choose to play that roll, for no-one can control how you feel. 666 as in the Torah, Tanakh, Kabal, numerology, KJV?


When have you ever heard *me* complain about being offended?

You're just dancing around the question as to *why* you claim it offended you


----------



## JJ Grandits

Wow, you kids can't play nice anymore can you?

Basics:

Killing babies is bad.
Selling the body parts of babies is bad.
Planning on how to kill the baby to save the body parts is super evil bad.

Those who do such, or advocate such have kissed their humanity good-bye.


----------



## Darren

I met a woman once that told me souls which came into this world knew they were going to be aborted. they did it for a brief experience in the physical world. When you consider what that statement implies, if true, it's far ranging.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> Since God is omniscient seems to me if he doesn't bother handing out souls to frozen embryos or fetuses that will be naturally aborted he wouldn't put them in the fetuses he knows will be medically aborted either. Unless he just likes being cruel?


It's a matter of timing, thought that would be a given...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JJ Grandits said:


> Wow, you kids can't play nice anymore can you?
> 
> Basics:
> 
> Killing babies is bad.
> Selling the body parts of babies is bad.
> Planning on how to kill the baby to save the body parts is super evil bad.
> 
> Those who do such, or advocate such have kissed their humanity good-bye.


No one is selling baby parts

From the transcript, and keep in mind any "" marks were added by the admitted liars making the video Page 35:



> 006878
> PP: No. Nothing, no affiliate should be doing anything thatâs not like, reasonable and customary.
> 
> This is not- *nobody should be âsellingâ tissue*.
> 
> *Thatâs just not the goal here*.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> However, there are several noted psychologists who advocate 'abortion' up to 2 mo. of age. As in already born. Have a pretty sizable following. Kinda a group.
> I'll drop a hint-they're NOT conservatives.
> 
> And btw, Holgen's writings were added to as well as lauded by several progressives, as in 'group'.



I don't understand your point. Has anyone here ever indicated that they believe anything of the sort? Are you trying to imply that that anyone here is advocating killing infants up to two months old? Please point it out. 

Are you the same as the Westboro baptist church or Muslim extremists? You're all religious after all. Don't lump everyone that in with an extreme progressive group of people.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Darren said:


> I met a woman once that told me souls which came into this world knew they were going to be aborted. they did it for a brief experience in the physical world. When you consider what that statement implies, if true, it's far ranging.


I've considered that logic before and came to the exact same conclusion. 

If there is an eternity after this, then what difference would the length of the life on this plane matter? Eternity is infinite so, by comparison, there is no relative difference between the finite terms of 1 day or 100 years. 

I had this thought on a plane while reading about Joseph Megele's experiment of binding the breasts of new mothers and measuring how long various races' babies would survive without food. 

Of course, I had to stop reading and ask Him the perennial question about the suffering of the innocent, and this was the conclusion he lead me to. 

If the purpose of existence in this world is to glory in His creation, and the scope of infinity negated the difference between two finite terms, then the only ones there to witness any cruelty were those of us on the outside of that individual's experience looking in. 

If those innocent children had no other experience than the throbbing warmth of their mother's womb, the gnawing pain of hunger, and the brilliant sight of some red flag with a broken black cross hanging on the wall across from their bed, then they had the experience he designed for them. Who else can make red?

They saw the glory of his creation, and then He took them home.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Darren said:


> I met a woman once that told me souls which came into this world knew they were going to be aborted. they did it for a brief experience in the physical world. When you consider what that statement implies, if true, it's far ranging.


I've read a bit about this and reincarnation, it's fascinating. The soul chooses it's earthly life.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> Personally I don't believe in God and so I don't believe he puts souls in anyone or anything.  I don't know what I think about souls in general. I do think that most of the debate about abortion in the end comes down to a dance around that subject though.
> 
> When does a fetus have a soul? A personality? Become a real human? Some religions say not until they draw their first breath. Some at conception. Most are somewhere in between. Science has no answers on that question. Anyone who has ever carried a child to term knows they do have personality before they are born. All three of mine were different before they were born. Different activity levels, sleep cycles, etc. They each definitely had a very distinctive personality when they were born. Maybe that's why most people across the spectrum on abortion agree that it should stop at "quickening". At that time we feel it kick and move and start to show us who it really is as an individual.
> 
> But if you believe in a kind God, a loving and omniscient God it seems to me you would also believe he doesn't waste a soul on a baby he knows will never be born. Or one that is born only to die shortly thereafter. That Heaven is full of millions and millions of babies who never made it past the first trimester.
> 
> That is tenuous ground though because I am sure that those mothers who lost babies close to or at term or shortly after birth hope the opposite: that when they get to Heaven their child will be waiting for them whole and well.
> 
> I have no answers.


Seems you'd like to have your belief respected but not others.
I know there are a lot-prolly the majority of conservatives who don't believe as I do as to when there's a soul. I state my belief & they state theirs.
Not sure how your reasoning goes about 'wasting souls' when you don't believe in God. But you believe in science & it seems some 'ethicists' are working on some answers. We now know that an unborn baby feels pain AT LEAST 20 wks gestation. Good enuf for me to end abortion on demand from that point. (At least)
Some have explained 'self defence'. If the unborn is destined to surely cause the mother's death, virtually all are closing the life of the mother. This is rare but can happen. 
I hope that clears it up for those who think it's Christians who are picking & choosing who "can" abort.


----------



## Tricky Grama

arabian knight said:


> I sure don't know why, but some on here sure are getting right on the border of getting too personal that is for sure. And this whole thread now is going right down the dumper FAST.,


There's a common denominator somewhere...personal attacks are allowed to slide w/some in this thread, then some how it's horrific to pray for folks. 

Statements are made regarding nasty posts but no examples; some who finally get deleted in other threads at a rate far greater than 'bout all others combined...


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> If you notice it only gets used when some Christian mocks and puts down those that don't believe in religion on purpose. If they don't act Christian then don't expect others to respect them or their version of what is being Christian.


Could you quote the posts you are referring to?


----------



## Tricky Grama

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I've considered that logic before and came to the exact same conclusion.
> 
> If there is an eternity after this, then what difference would the length of the life on this plane matter? Eternity is infinite so, by comparison, there is no relative difference between the finite terms of 1 day or 100 years.
> 
> I had this thought on a plane while reading about Joseph Megele's experiment of binding the breasts of new mothers and measuring how long various races' babies would survive without food.
> 
> Of course, I had to stop reading and ask Him the perennial question about the suffering of the innocent, and this was the conclusion he lead me to.
> 
> If the purpose of existence in this world is to glory in His creation, and the scope of infinity negated the difference between two finite terms, then the only ones there to witness any cruelty were those of us on the outside of that individual's experience looking in.
> 
> If those innocent children had no other experience than the throbbing warmth of their mother's womb, the gnawing pain of hunger, and the brilliant sight of some red flag with a broken black cross hanging on the wall across from their bed, then they had the experience he designed for them. Who else can make red?
> 
> They saw the glory of his creation, and then He took them home.


Good points, all of 'em. Things we will prolly never know in this life. So interesting to see different takes on this. Do you think "ethicists" will come to any conclusion as to when 'life' begins?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Could you quote the posts you are referring to?


Can't. The post was deleted.


----------



## Patchouli

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I've considered that logic before and came to the exact same conclusion.
> 
> If there is an eternity after this, then what difference would the length of the life on this plane matter? Eternity is infinite so, by comparison, there is no relative difference between the finite terms of 1 day or 100 years.
> 
> I had this thought on a plane while reading about Joseph Megele's experiment of binding the breasts of new mothers and measuring how long various races' babies would survive without food.
> 
> Of course, I had to stop reading and ask Him the perennial question about the suffering of the innocent, and this was the conclusion he lead me to.
> 
> If the purpose of existence in this world is to glory in His creation, and the scope of infinity negated the difference between two finite terms, then the only ones there to witness any cruelty were those of us on the outside of that individual's experience looking in.
> 
> If those innocent children had no other experience than the throbbing warmth of their mother's womb, the gnawing pain of hunger, and the brilliant sight of some red flag with a broken black cross hanging on the wall across from their bed, then they had the experience he designed for them. Who else can make red?
> 
> They saw the glory of his creation, and then He took them home.


And you ask us how we sleep at night? How do you sleep at night following a God like that? That is hands down the most horrible thing I have read in a long time.


----------



## Patchouli

Tricky Grama said:


> Seems you'd like to have your belief respected but not others.
> I know there are a lot-prolly the majority of conservatives who don't believe as I do as to when there's a soul. I state my belief & they state theirs.
> Not sure how your reasoning goes about 'wasting souls' when you don't believe in God. But you believe in science & it seems some 'ethicists' are working on some answers. We now know that an unborn baby feels pain AT LEAST 20 wks gestation. Good enuf for me to end abortion on demand from that point. (At least)
> Some have explained 'self defence'. If the unborn is destined to surely cause the mother's death, virtually all are closing the life of the mother. This is rare but can happen.
> I hope that clears it up for those who think it's Christians who are picking & choosing who "can" abort.


Obviously you missed the fact I was trying to respect everyone's opinions with that statement.


----------



## Darren

Patchouli said:


> And you ask us how we sleep at night? How do you sleep at night following a God like that? That is hands down the most horrible thing I have read in a long time.


Some horrible things have happened on this planet. I have no problem understanding that and accepting that a supreme force/energy existed before and continues. I have questions and I seek answers. I still sleep very well at night.


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> And you ask us how we sleep at night? How do you sleep at night following a God like that? That is hands down the most horrible thing I have read in a long time.


Is it any surprise to anyone that suffering happens in this world? Everyone dies... many live short lives, many live physically miserable ones, many more live emotionally miserable ones. If your point is that God is horrible to allow the suffering we see here, you should know that He didn't make it so. We asked for that and continue to do so as we continually offer up the world He gave us to the enemy He warned us about. 

If it simply came down to justice, we've not only earned this hard world temporarily, but we've earned annihilation eternally. In spite of that, He has gone beyond what is simply justice and extended Himself in mercy towards us...offering us a future of blessing that we do not deserve if we'll have it.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Q


Patchouli said:


> And you ask us how we sleep at night? How do you sleep at night following a God like that? That is hands down the most horrible thing I have read in a long time.


First of all, I don't recall having asked you any such thing.
Building straw men a personal hobby or something?

Secondly, I think that I asked Him the question with a bent toward questioning His cruelty (truthfully, whether I wanted that connotation there or not), and the answer He gave me was one that illustrated His capacity for love. 

We all suffer, and suffering is finite. His gift, on the other hand, is infinite. If I had no other life at all, if I never knew His creation, then I would know nothing at all. I would not know. I would not be. I would not. 

But, I am. The things I know are because of the things He constructed for me, and showed to me. If all he designed to show me was the unconditional love of my mother's protective body, the pain of an empty stomach, and the brilliance of the color red, then I am infinitely richer for it. 

Who else can make red?

Seriously. That is the point, in itself, really. Who else can make red?

Without it, we'd have a red-less creation. Without Him we'd have NO creation. Any taste of anything He made, and chose to give to me is a gift, and even if He chose to give me the sum-total combined experiences of every man who came before me and every man who would come after, it still wouldn't be a single grain of sand, from all the beaches of all the worlds in the universe, compared to the infinity of His creation. 

Pray. 
Please, one in a while, pray. 
He's got something to say to you. 
I promise.


----------



## farmrbrown

Woolieface said:


> Is it any surprise to anyone that suffering happens in this world? Everyone dies... many live short lives, many live physically miserable ones, many more live emotionally miserable ones. If your point is that God is horrible to allow the suffering we see here, you should know that He didn't make it so. We asked for that and continue to do so as we continually offer up the world He gave us to the enemy He warned us about.
> 
> If it simply came down to justice, we've not only earned this hard world temporarily, but we've earned annihilation eternally. In spite of that, He has gone beyond what is simply justice and extended Himself in mercy towards us...offering us a future of blessing that we do not deserve if we'll have it.





I enjoyed reading the questions and the answers, even though I've seen them before. It means that at least there are many who seem not quite as certain as they would like to be, welcome to the human race, lol.
The most common are like Job, "Why would a loving God allow this to happen?"
Very common question and the variation of it that blames God for it entirely, since after all, He's CEO of the universe, right?
My dad was an agnostic, so he told me. Not bitter or mad, maybe a little disappointed and resigned. We never got the chance to talk much about it, but I'm sure we will one day when we meet again.

The funny thing about the blaming of God for all the horrific things we see, is how short sighted we really are, like little children, toddlers old enough to loudly voice their opinions, barely able to take steps on our own, and unable to pay our own way in this world, diapers included. Yet we scream about how bad we have it, like the kids in the checkout line.

We demand our independence and the right to make our own decisions, then complain about the results all around us.

Speaking to all, but especially to those who don't believe in the Bible, or doubt much of it's validity, the only thing I can say is, we had a choice from the beginning. We all have choices every day we awake. It is the cumulative results of these choices that most of grieve over and look for blame or relief or rescue.
A good parent *doesn't* step in and break every fall, even if they could.
Parents see the results of their children's choices and rejoice, and sometimes weep for them.

I guess you could say God is "pro - choice" in the ultimate sense of the word, huh?

It may be popular on the Dr's couch to blame it all on Mom or Dad and I know some that deserve it, but I can't say that.
When I DO have a question, I don't hesitate to ask, but I usually can see where the blame lies before I ever do......


----------



## Jolly

A nice perspective on the media, selling body parts and the Confederate flag:

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/20/ideas-for-reporters-struggling-to-cover-planned-parenthood/


----------



## gibbsgirl

Jolly said:


> A nice perspective on the media, selling body parts and the Confederate flag:
> 
> http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/20/ideas-for-reporters-struggling-to-cover-planned-parenthood/


Great article jolly. Thanks a bunch for putting up the link.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is selling baby parts
> 
> From the transcript, and keep in mind any "" marks were added by the admitted liars making the video Page 35:


From the transcript:

_So then youâre just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, weâve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so Iâm not gonna crush that part, Iâm going to basically crush below, Iâm gonna crush above, and Iâm gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that itâs not vertex, because when itâs vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium.
_ - Deborah Nucatola, M.D.

Calvarium is a doctory way of saying head. Vertex presentation is a normal presentation, i.e., head first. Or, in other words, sometimes they have to change the presentation in order to kill the child in a more organ friendly way.

Humans reduced to meat. Placed in a freezer like so many pieces of hamburger or flung in the trash to be hauled to the dumpster. If only Josef Mengele could see us now.

The philosophy of man-as-meat is not long compatible with liberty or human dignity.

According to a guitar-wielding poet of the 60's, you're gonna have to serve somebody. Now it might be the Devil or it might be the Lord, but serve you will...


----------



## kasilofhome

Media social engineering.... combined with sanitized history... keep people ignorant....besides guiding minds aids in controlling them.


----------



## Patchouli

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Q
> 
> First of all, I don't recall having asked you any such thing.
> Building straw men a personal hobby or something?
> 
> Secondly, I think that I asked Him the question with a bent toward questioning His cruelty (truthfully, whether I wanted that connotation there or not), and the answer He gave me was one that illustrated His capacity for love.
> 
> We all suffer, and suffering is finite. His gift, on the other hand, is infinite. If I had no other life at all, if I never knew His creation, then I would know nothing at all. I would not know. I would not be. I would not.
> 
> But, I am. The things I know are because of the things He constructed for me, and showed to me. If all he designed to show me was the unconditional love of my mother's protective body, the pain of an empty stomach, and the brilliance of the color red, then I am infinitely richer for it.
> 
> Who else can make red?
> 
> Seriously. That is the point, in itself, really. Who else can make red?
> 
> Without it, we'd have a red-less creation. Without Him we'd have NO creation. Any taste of anything He made, and chose to give to me is a gift, and even if He chose to give me the sum-total combined experiences of every man who came before me and every man who would come after, it still wouldn't be a single grain of sand, from all the beaches of all the worlds in the universe, compared to the infinity of His creation.
> 
> Pray.
> Please, one in a while, pray.
> He's got something to say to you.
> I promise.


That was a general you not a specific one, the question has been tossed out several times in both abortion threads. 

If you wanted to run with God allows us all free will and suffering is just a consequence of that choice I could understand that. But to say God not only willed that suffering he did it to show that child dying horrifically the color red to glorify himself is utterly beyond me and in my opinion that is one sick and warped God you have there. He can skip that death altogether and just show the kid red when he gets to heaven.

Trust me I was a Christian for most of my life and eventually I figured out there is no one out there and it was my own head answering when I prayed. It's really the only plausible explanation when it comes right down to it for why Christians hear such widely varying things from God.


----------



## Patchouli

farmrbrown said:


> I enjoyed reading the questions and the answers, even though I've seen them before. It means that at least there are many who seem not quite as certain as they would like to be, welcome to the human race, lol.
> The most common are like Job, "Why would a loving God allow this to happen?"
> Very common question and the variation of it that blames God for it entirely, since after all, He's CEO of the universe, right?
> My dad was an agnostic, so he told me. Not bitter or mad, maybe a little disappointed and resigned. We never got the chance to talk much about it, but I'm sure we will one day when we meet again.
> 
> The funny thing about the blaming of God for all the horrific things we see, is how short sighted we really are, like little children, toddlers old enough to loudly voice their opinions, barely able to take steps on our own, and unable to pay our own way in this world, diapers included. Yet we scream about how bad we have it, like the kids in the checkout line.
> 
> We demand our independence and the right to make our own decisions, then complain about the results all around us.
> 
> Speaking to all, but especially to those who don't believe in the Bible, or doubt much of it's validity, the only thing I can say is, we had a choice from the beginning. We all have choices every day we awake. It is the cumulative results of these choices that most of grieve over and look for blame or relief or rescue.
> A good parent *doesn't* step in and break every fall, even if they could.
> Parents see the results of their children's choices and rejoice, and sometimes weep for them.
> 
> I guess you could say God is "pro - choice" in the ultimate sense of the word, huh?
> 
> It may be popular on the Dr's couch to blame it all on Mom or Dad and I know some that deserve it, but I can't say that.
> When I DO have a question, I don't hesitate to ask, but I usually can see where the blame lies before I ever do......


That argument doesn't work for Job. He did nothing but live a blameless life. God tossed him to Satan to win a bet.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I don',t think having a wide range of interpretations of God is representative of any particular weakness to Christianity. If you look at all other faiths and even atheism, ther is a wide range of interpretations and explanations for things.

Since those differences cross so many faiths and cultures, IMO they aren't representative of determining the correctness of anyone's faith being accurate and the most well proven or explained.

And, all those differences lead to some vastly different ways of practicing faiths. And, yes atheism is a faith. Even for the atheists who gave faith in no deity figure at all. Faith doesn't equal belief in God. It's just belief in sonething bring true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Humans reduced to meat. Placed in a freezer like so many pieces of hamburger or flung in the trash to be hauled to the dumpster. If only Josef Mengele could see us now.


Moving the forceps half an inch doesn't prove they are selling anything.

The WWII allusions are more emotional diversion due to the lack of logical arguments, and you weren't the first to use it so you aren't even being original.



> Vertex presentation is a *normal presentation*, i.e., head first.


That's normal for a full term pregnancy, but not for an abortion

Posting another biased hit piece serves no purpose either


----------



## Patchouli

gibbsgirl said:


> I don',t think having a wide range of interpretations of God is representative of any particular weakness to Christianity. If you look at all other faiths and even atheism, ther is a wide range of interpretations and explanations for things.
> 
> Since those differences cross so many faiths and cultures, IMO they aren't representative of determining the correctness of anyone's faith being accurate and the most well proven or explained.
> 
> And, all those differences lead to some vastly different ways of practicing faiths. And, yes atheism is a faith. Even for the atheists who gave faith in no deity figure at all. Faith doesn't equal belief in God. It's just belief in sonething bring true.


Depends on how bad your interpretation makes your God look. 

In my post above though I was talking about individuals praying and asking God what they should do or for truth or what have you and God giving people wildly varying answers. That tells me there is no God out there talking because if he was I think he could make sure everyone actually got the same right answer.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Patchouli said:


> Depends on how bad your interpretation makes your God look.
> 
> In my post above though I was talking about individuals praying and asking God what they should do or for truth or what have you and God giving people wildly varying answers. That tells me there is no God out there talking because if he was I think he could make sure everyone actually got the same right answer.


I respect your feelings as being true to you.

My feelings about people hearing different things is that perhaps they are not clearly discerning things all the time. And, perhaps God prompts and answers things differently because they have different needs and he has different plans for them. We',re all individuals with our own lives afterall.

We also all have varying levels of openness to his guidance as we got through life in my opinion.

That's how I feel anyway.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Good points, all of 'em. Things we will prolly never know in this life. So interesting to see different takes on this. Do you think "ethicists" will come to any conclusion as to when 'life' begins?


Life began in the beginning, at this point it is merely perpetuating itself.


----------



## farmrbrown

Patchouli said:


> That argument doesn't work for Job. He did nothing but live a blameless life. God tossed him to Satan to win a bet.



Indeed, Job was a righteous man, and for that, he continued to be, even when faced with evil and destruction. I seem to remember a more well known example around 2,000 years ago.

Of course you have to study Job from start to finish to gain full knowledge.
At the end God reminds him just who He is. 
To trivialize what God was doing in "betting" on Job, you would first have to know what the "stakes" were, no?
:idea:





gibbsgirl said:


> I don',t think having a wide range of interpretations of God is representative of any particular weakness to Christianity. If you look at all other faiths and even atheism, ther is a wide range of interpretations and explanations for things.
> 
> Since those differences cross so many faiths and cultures, IMO they aren't representative of determining the correctness of anyone's faith being accurate and the most well proven or explained.
> 
> And, all those differences lead to some vastly different ways of practicing faiths. And, yes atheism is a faith. Even for the atheists who gave faith in no deity figure at all. Faith doesn't equal belief in God. It's just belief in sonething bring true.





Patchouli said:


> Depends on how bad your interpretation makes your God look.
> 
> In my post above though I was talking about individuals praying and asking God what they should do or for truth or what have you and God giving people wildly varying answers. That tells me there is no God out there talking because if he was I think he could make sure everyone actually got the same right answer.



He does try to make sure, and warns of "bad interpretations". He even left an detailed instruction manual for us to read........:thumb:
Once again, it's our choice.


----------



## Txsteader

Patchouli said:


> That argument doesn't work for Job. He did nothing but live a blameless life. God tossed him to Satan to win a bet.


The point of the story of Job is the show us that IF we can maintain our faith, in spite of the worst that can happen in life, we will a) strengthen our relationship w/ (come closer to) God and b) be blessed for our faithfulness. 

I've never read scripture that said life as a believer was going to be perfect, with no troubles or that God was going to make heaven on earth for His children.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> Moving the forceps half an inch doesn't prove they are selling anything.


Then why do it.....intentionally? What are the intentions for doing it?


----------



## 7thswan

Uh oh, new video out.


----------



## gibbsgirl

More videos. More info. More discussions.....investigations.

It all leads toward having more informed citizens. And, that means more informed decisions, and I think that is good for mothers and babies.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Then why do it.....intentionally? What are the intentions for doing it?


Have you not read any of the transcripts?

Do you really require detailed explanations again, when it was clearly explained before.

The purpose is to not damage the research samples.

Read Page 11 of the transcript instead of relying on bits and pieces posted along with all the emotional diversions.

Just replace the word "buyer" with "liar" and it will be more accurate

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf


> Buyer: We need liver and we prefer, you know, an actual liver, not a bunch
> of shredded up&#8212;
> PP: Piece of liver.
> Buyer: Yeah. Or especially brain is where it&#8217;s actually a big issue, hemispheres
> need to be intact, it&#8217;s a big deal with neural tissue and the progenitors, because those are particularly fragile.
> 
> If you&#8217;ve got that in the back of your mind, if you&#8217;re aware of that, technically, how much of a difference can that actually make if you know kind of what&#8217;s expected or what we need, versus&#8212;
> 
> PP: It makes a huge difference. I&#8217;d say a lot of people want liver. And for
> that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance,
> so they&#8217;ll know where they&#8217;re putting their forceps.
> 
> The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is the calvarium, the head is basically the biggest part. Most of the other stuff can come out intact. It&#8217;s very rare to have a patient that doesn&#8217;t have enough dilation to evacuate all the other parts intact.
> 
> Buyer: To bring the body cavity out intact and all that?
> 
> PP: Exactly. So then you&#8217;re just kind of cognizant of where you put your
> graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that,
> you know, we&#8217;ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we
> know that, so I&#8217;m not gonna crush that part, I&#8217;m going to basically crush
> below, I&#8217;m gonna crush above, and I&#8217;m gonna see if I can get it all intact.
> 
> And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change
> the presentation so that it&#8217;s not vertex, because when it&#8217;s vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium. So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there&#8217;s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end. So I mean there are certainly steps that can be taken to try to ensure&#8212;
> 
> Buyer: So they can convert to breach, for example, at the start of the&#8212;
> 
> PP: Exactly, exactly. Under ultrasound guidance, they can just change the
> presentation.
> 
> Buyer: Okay.
> 
> PP: So *the preparation would be exactly the same, it&#8217;s just the order of the
> removal of the products is different*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> More videos. More info. More discussions.....investigations.
> 
> It all leads toward having more informed citizens. And, that means more informed decisions, and I think that is good for mothers and babies.


Spreading more lies doesn't mean more "informed decisions"

It means more MISinformation to be parroted endlessly as if it were real


----------



## gibbsgirl

It's a wonder some people could believe women are even capable and appropriate to be trusted to make abortion decisions at all...

It seems those same people feel that women are incapable of hearing all the news, propaganda, etc of both sides of the abortion debate, and those in between, and separating the wheat from the chaff just fine.

So are women smart enough to be allowed their rights to make life or death decisions?

Or are they too stupid to even be allowed to access both sides info because they are mindless parrots, etc?

Seems like it's be difficult to have it both ways.

I think women are smart enough to decide, understand, and completantly decide about both.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> It seems those same people feel that women are incapable of hearing all the news, propaganda, etc of both sides of the abortion debate, and those in between, and separating the wheat from the chaff just fine.
> 
> So are women smart enough to be allowed their rights to make life or death decisions?


You're the only one who keeps saying they aren't informed.

The information has been available for decades, so you seem to be saying they aren't smart enough to find it on their own



> What I don't tolerate well is that I feel many women do not have sufficient access to information and support before during and after to cope with whatever their feelings are or become so they can live as well as possible with the consequences of their decisions.


Nothing new has been brought forth by these videos, so I fail to see how they help anyone other than the politicians and lawyers


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> That was a general you not a specific one, the question has been tossed out several times in both abortion threads.
> 
> If you wanted to run with God allows us all free will and suffering is just a consequence of that choice I could understand that. But to say God not only willed that suffering he did it to show that child dying horrifically the color red to glorify himself is utterly beyond me and in my opinion that is one sick and warped God you have there. He can skip that death altogether and just show the kid red when he gets to heaven.
> 
> Trust me I was a Christian for most of my life and eventually I figured out there is no one out there and it was my own head answering when I prayed. It's really the only plausible explanation when it comes right down to it for why Christians hear such widely varying things from God.


We all hear the voice of self in our heads. His is a much quieter voice, one that respects our voice of self if it chooses to interrupt and yell louder. Sometimes He speaks to us through the actions and voices of others, through those little noticed moments in daily life, and even through tragedy. Sometimes there's a rainbow coming, but we can only see the rain that's falling now.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> Have you not read any of the transcripts?
> 
> Do you really require detailed explanations again, when it was clearly explained before.
> 
> The purpose is to not damage the research samples.
> 
> Read Page 11 of the transcript instead of relying on bits and pieces posted along with all the emotional diversions.
> 
> Just replace the word "buyer" with "liar" and it will be more accurate
> 
> http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf


So, does PP give away these tissues or do they sell them? By the transccript, it is evident they are using techniques to preserve certain tissues.

If they sell them, then the original argument stands - they are selling organs for money.

Period.


----------



## BlackFeather

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ood-doctor-haggling-price-of-baby-body-parts/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/19/abby-johnson-planned-parenthood-defector-loophole-/

It is all over Drudge this morning. The first is about a doctor haggling over price, the second is an ex-employee who says that the loophole is the vague allowance over recovering costs. Since that price can be set at any amount that isn't excessive, not necessarily reflecting true costs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *If* they sell them, then the original argument stands - they are selling organs for money.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't sell them.
> That was also in the transcript, Page 34:
> 
> http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buyer: Ok. I&#8217;m just trying to brainstorm. Because, I think offering some people,
> not only, just offsetting their cost in other areas, seeing the potential for that,
> besides the potential, for the patient, I&#8217;m still going down that road, even though I
> know, I understand what you&#8217;re saying. This cannot be seen as, &#8220;We&#8217;re doing this
> for profit.&#8221;
> 006878
> PP: No. Nothing, no affiliate should be doing anything that&#8217;s not like, reasonable
> and customary. This is not- *nobody should be &#8220;selling&#8221; tissue. That&#8217;s just not the
> goal here*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The repetition is getting old
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're the only one who keeps saying they aren't informed.
> 
> The information has been available for decades, so you seem to be saying they aren't smart enough to find it on their own
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing new has been brought forth by these videos, so I fail to see how they help anyone other than the politicians and lawyers


Someone put a link up yesterday that pointed out many questions that even the media has done a thorough job of running down answers to that would make for a more informed public.

I'm not saying the public is entirely uninformed. I'm saying being more informed is a good thing.

That's not my stance on just abortion either. Being as informed as possible is a good thing. Eta: that article was the Federalist site link.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Someone put a link up yesterday that pointed out many questions that even the media has done a thorough job of running down answers to that would make for a more informed public.
> 
> I'm not saying the public is entirely uninformed. *I'm saying being more informed is a good thing.*
> 
> That's not my stance on just abortion either. Being as informed as possible is a good thing.


And I'm saying being lied to to push an agenda is NOT a good thing.

These videos are mostly lies and innuendo



> Eta: that article was the Federalist site link.


Yes, I read that hit piece also, but saw nothing of substance since it mainly rehashed the video's allegations


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't sell them.
> That was also in the transcript, Page 34:
> 
> http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> The repetition is getting old
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, your inability to even consider wrong-doing is frustrating.
> 
> In a statement dated 7/14, the head of PP states that they do receive money for the preservation and shipment costs of fetal tissue. What she _does not_ state, however, is how much money they receive for this service.
> 
> Discussing the legal loophole:
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/19/abby-johnson-planned-parenthood-defector-loophole-/
> 
> Of course, this current discussion wouldn't be the first time PP has been caught on camera...
> 
> http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/12/...fer-who-told-15-year-old-to-engage-in-sm-sex/
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> And I'm saying being lied to to push an agenda is NOT a good thing.
> 
> These videos are mostly lies and innuendo


Nearly all sources of info are biased and subjective. Not considering them and determining for yourself what you find credible, means you'd be limiting yourself to too little information to be well informed.

Jurors are given both sides in a case which frequently tell opposite representations of supposed unbiased facts, and they make their determinations.

It's a process and including listening to both sides and their rebuttals is what lets people be informed.

That's why I don't discourage either side from letting the other have their say.


----------



## gapeach

*New Video: Planned Parenthood Abattoir offers &#8220;less crunchy technique&#8221; to better harvest murdered baby
http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/07...hnique-to-better-harvest-murdered-baby-parts/ *


This is obscene.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Well I enjoyed the Federalist article, and thought it brought forward many questions whose answers are not all commonly known in the public.

I liked very much that it was from a journalist who was making a call to arms to other journalists and saying they all need to seek out those answers and use the platforms they gave as journalists to bring more information forward to the public at large so we can be more informed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> In a statement dated 7/14, the head of PP states that they do receive money for the preservation and shipment costs of fetal tissue. What she does not state, however, is how much money they receive for this service.


Of course she didn't state a precise figure since no two surgical procedures are identical

That's all discussed in the transcript which I'm beginning to think you haven't really read at all



> Nah, your inability to even consider wrong-doing is frustrating.


I'd consider it if I were shown any real proof.
That has yet to happen


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> *New Video: Planned Parenthood Abattoir offers âless crunchy techniqueâ to better harvest murdered baby
> http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/07...hnique-to-better-harvest-murdered-baby-parts/ *
> 
> 
> This is obscene.


Did you watch the whole video? It is obvious that the people filming the video are trying to trap the Planned Parenthood speaker. They fail. She talks very clearly about the rules and that they must follow them. They also talk about these specimens being quite early in the gestation.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course she didn't state a precise figure since no two surgical procedures are identical
> 
> That's all discussed in the transcript which I'm beginning to think you haven't really read at all
> 
> 
> 
> I'd consider it if I were shown any real proof.
> That has yet to happen


I've helped compile charge lists for hospitals. Never have we had varying charges for a cholescystectomy or other common procedures. Reimbursement dictates that. Varying charges for additional procedures, yes, but I doubt very seriously whether PP's procedure varies very much, from patient to patient.

Besides, the people who are the recipients of the tissue are not going to pay for variables in procedures. The dollar amount will be set in the contract...And I assure you, a contract exists.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> I've helped compile charge lists for hospitals. Never have we had varying charges for a cholescystectomy or other common procedures. Reimbursement dictates that. Varying charges for additional procedures, yes, but I doubt very seriously whether PP's procedure varies very much, from patient to patient.
> 
> Besides, the people who are the recipients of the tissue are not going to pay for variables in procedures. The dollar amount will be set in the contract...And I assure you, a contract exists.


It's all explained very well in the transcript as to why costs vary.

There's more involved than just the surgery itself.

You want to keep speculating rather than just reading the explanations already given


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's all explained very well in the transcript as to why costs vary.
> 
> There's more involved than just the surgery itself.
> 
> You want to keep speculating rather than just reading the explanations already given


Researchers do not pay varying costs for research material based upon vague charges they have no control over.


----------



## gibbsgirl

One of the things I have issue with....

Partial birth abortions were dealt with legally because people found it unacceptable to allow children to be born and die outside the womb after birth.

Partial births obviously meant that more of the child's remains would be intact after birth and therefore more would be harvestable for research labs.

Now, with the technology and practiced techniques some drs are using they are attempting to be able to preserve the child's remains so they are more successful in how much is left to be harvestable.

It's like developing a work around to what banning partial births was supposed to prevent.

If a child (or fetus) is going to die, why are we not completely focusing our efforts to ensure that the mother is not injured and the child is suffering as little as possible when it is dispatched. We're losing the element of mercy in all of this.

My thoughts anyway...


----------



## WildernesFamily

painterswife said:


> Did you watch the whole video? It is obvious that the people filming the video are trying to trap the Planned Parenthood speaker. They fail. She talks very clearly about the rules and that they must follow them. They also talk about these specimens being quite early in the gestation.


Did you watch the whole video? It's obvious that there are no "shipping/whatever/reimbursement" costs involved in her thinking, only being worried about getting less than what others are getting. After all, she wants to get her Lamborghini.

Also, it's obvious that she is talking about altering the abortion process with the intent to procure a "complete specimen." That's illegal.

How can anyone even listen to her talk and not be completely appalled by what they are hearing?


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> One of the things I have issue with....
> 
> Partial birth abortions were dealt with legally because people found it unacceptable to allow children to be born and die outside the womb after birth.
> 
> Partial births obviously meant that more of the child's remains would be intact after birth and therefore more would be harvestable for research labs.
> 
> Now, with the technology and practiced techniques some drs are using they are attempting to be able to preserve the child's remains so they are more successful in how much is left to be harvestable.
> 
> It's like developing a work around to what banning partial births was supposed to prevent.
> 
> If a child (or fetus) is going to die, why are we not completely focusing our efforts to ensure that the mother is not injured and the child is suffering as little as possible when it is dispatched. We're losing the element of mercy in all of this.
> 
> My thoughts anyway...


They are focusing on the mother first. If the abortion is going to take place there is nothing wrong preserving the abortion tissue if it can help someone else and does not harm the mother.

This is a ongoing discussion doctors and ethicists.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> They are focusing on the mother first. If the abortion is going to take place there is nothing wrong preserving the abortion tissue if it can help someone else and does not harm the mother.
> 
> This is a ongoing discussion doctors and ethicists.


That is your opinion, and o do not begrudge it or say it is wrong for you or that you shouldn't be free to share it.

I am glad though that the videos have come out because I hope it helps others to be able to process and discuss what is right for them.

I believe the ongoing discussions should continue and be more inclusive of the public so we can make sure we know more and can ensure our laws ultimately are what the citizens believe they should be.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Researchers do not pay varying costs for research material based upon vague charges they have no control over.


Proving yet again you haven't read the explanations of why costs vary.
You're still just giving your opinion


----------



## Guest

Jolly said:


> Researchers do not pay varying costs for research material based upon vague charges they have no control over.


Amazing how some believe opinions are not valid, even when that opinion is produced by someone who spent a considerable amount of time in the field. Opinions have been used as points of evidence in law for eons and can be challenged, but certainly can hold valid weight.


----------



## painterswife

WildernesFamily said:


> Did you watch the whole video? It's obvious that there are no "shipping/whatever/reimbursement" costs involved in her thinking, only being worried about getting less than what others are getting. After all, she wants to get her Lamborghini.
> 
> Also, it's obvious that she is talking about altering the abortion process with the intent to procure a "complete specimen." That's illegal.
> 
> How can anyone even listen to her talk and not be completely appalled by what they are hearing?


I have watched the entire over one hour video. Have you? The cut and paste "press release" video again is a propaganda video meant to give a few misleading talking points.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Amazing how some believe *opinions are not valid*, even when that opinion is produced by someone who spent a considerable amount of time in the field. Opinions have been used as points of evidence in law for eons and can be challenged, but certainly can hold valid weight.


Opinions aren't valid when they ignore the given facts.

All the reasons for different costs were stated in the transcript.

No "opinions" are necessary when it's already been detailed

There's no need for the word games either


----------



## Woolieface

gapeach said:


> *New Video: Planned Parenthood Abattoir offers âless crunchy techniqueâ to better harvest murdered baby
> http://www.blazingcatfur.ca/2015/07...hnique-to-better-harvest-murdered-baby-parts/ *
> 
> 
> This is obscene.


Yes it is. It was one of the most nauseating things I've ever listened to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Also, it's obvious that she is talking about altering the abortion process with the intent to procure a "complete specimen." That's illegal.


There's nothing illegal about a Dr performing any *normal* procedure they choose.

Nothing dictates the precise methods as long as they are all legal methods


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Opinions aren't valid when they ignore the given facts.
> 
> All the reasons for different costs were stated in the transcript.
> 
> No "opinions" are necessary when it's already been detailed
> 
> There's no need for the word games either


You have supplied nothing, no facts, just your side of the slanted propaganda of Planned Parenthood. Your interpretation is no more a fact than anyone else.

I will post opinions as I please, I have absolutely no need of you purposeful scorn, but it appears you have every right to it.


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> Yes it is. It was one of the most nauseating things I've ever listened to.


Yes , it is nauseating how many times the posing actors try to trap the PP people into "selling" parts. Each and every time she basically tells them no we have to do things the right way because they are not selling.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Dlmcafee,

Not understanding what facts, reality, truth, etc really mean makes things complicated.

Nothing is as simple as it seems to understand, if we really dig deep. Superficial understanding is less stressful, and we all are tempted to take the oath of least resistance.

At least, everybody here is mostly getting to have their say. None of us can receive input if we're restricted and censored.

I'm actually shocked, good shocked that these threads have kept going reasonably well.

But, yeah, facts are funny things, and declaring absolute truths is a tough way to prove much of anything to others.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> *You have supplied nothing*, no facts, just your side of the slanted propaganda of Planned Parenthood. Your interpretation is no more a fact than anyone else.
> 
> I will post opinions as I please, I have absolutely no need of you purposeful scorn, but it appears you have every right to it.


LOL
Yes, lets pretend I haven't posted any links to anything

I've not offered "my interpretation"

I've attempted to show the transcript from the source you want to claim is correct, which contradicts most of their own claims, but all you want to do is play word games and pretend you're somehow being "scorned"

You've got the persecution complex down to a science.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> But, yeah, facts are funny things, and declaring absolute truths is a tough way to prove much of anything to others.


Refusing to accept anything as true does no good at all

Psychobabble is simpler:



> Nothing is as simple as it seems to understand, if we really dig deep. Superficial understanding is less stressful, and we all are tempted to take the oath of least resistance.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> Proving yet again you haven't read the explanations of why costs vary.
> You're still just giving your opinion


Not an opinion.

For many years, before we could synthesize GH, I helped harvest pituitary glands for Vanderbilt Medical School and its children's hospital.

Vandy picked up the shipping costs, as stated in the Memorandum of Understanding. Whether the specimen was hard to obtain or not, mattered not one whit.

Having worked in research hospitals for 34 years, I assume now you are going to tell me how it's done.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Not an opinion.
> 
> For many years, before we could synthesize GH, I helped harvest pituitary glands for Vanderbilt Medical School and its children's hospital.
> 
> Vandy picked up the shipping costs, as stated in the Memorandum of Understanding. Whether the specimen was hard to obtain or not, mattered not one whit.
> 
> Having worked in research hospitals for 34 years, I assume now you are going to tell me how it's done.


I'm not trying to tell you how it was done where you were

I'm trying to get you to read what they talked about at PP, since they gave the reasons as to why costs would vary.

What you did 30 years ago has nothing to do with this case at all, and if you had read enough of the transcript you'd understand

The only similarity seems to be you actually made a living selling body parts, while PP has only been *accused *of selling them


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> Yes , it is nauseating how many times the posing actors try to trap the PP people into "selling" parts. Each and every time she basically tells them no we have to do things the right way because they are not selling.


Yeah that's terrible. Worse than a less crunchy way to kill a baby......


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> Yeah that's terrible. Worse than a less crunchy way to kill a baby......


No worse than taking a word or two in an hour long discussion and making that the focus of the propaganda.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> No worse than taking a word or two in an hour long discussion and making that the focus of the propaganda.


The way that kind of heartlessness hits the soul has nothing to do with propaganda. You don't have to be a genius to get that.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> Yes, lets pretend I haven't posted any links to anything
> 
> I've not offered "my interpretation"
> 
> I've attempted to show the transcript from the source you want to claim is correct, which contradicts most of their own claims, but all you want to do is play word games and pretend you're somehow being "scorned"
> 
> You've got the persecution complex down to a science.


Your interpretation consistently has been one word, "Liars"

Interpretation of transcripts are just that, your biased view on the content and how you interpret words written, yes we all do that.

I do not feel scorned, I feel you spew it with lustful vigor, and that again is an interpretation.

For one that loves word games it seems to upset you when others do not bow to yours.

No, no persecution complex here. As I've said before your words mean nothing but short term entertainment into the world of the sheep.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> You *interpretation* consistently has been one word, "Liars"
> 
> *Interpretation of transcripts are just that, your biased view on the content* and how you *interpret* words written, yes we all do that.
> 
> I do not feel scorned, I feel you spew it with lustful vigor, and that again is an interpretation.
> 
> For one that loves word games it seems to upset you when others do not bow to yours


There you go with the word games again, even though I said all I expect is that you *read what was said*.

There is only one way to "interpret" it when they explained the costs would vary *depending on the total services offered*. It's plain simple English, with no hidden meanings, no matter how much you want it to say something else

If you don't feel scorned, why did you use the word at all, or is that just my "interpretation" also?



> I will post opinions as I please, I have absolutely no need of you purposeful *scorn*, but it appears you have every right to it.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not trying to tell you how it was done where you were
> 
> I'm trying to get you to read what they talked about at PP, since they gave the reasons as to why costs would vary.
> 
> What you did 30 years ago has nothing to do with this case at all, and if you had read enough of the transcript you'd understand
> 
> The only similarity seems to be you actually made a living selling body parts, while PP has only been *accused *of selling them


I didn't retire from the hospital until last February. Sadly, it was closed, but our parent hospital is alive, well and running an entire research park.

And no, we made no money selling parts, because if you know where the gland in discussion is located, it cost us money to get to it - my salary, a pathologist's salary and extra bone saw blades. In essence, our hospital felt the treatment of dwarfism in children was worth the money it cost.

Now, do you think PP is losing money on their body parts?

Wiggle, worm, wiggle....


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> I didn't retire from the hospital until last February. Sadly, it was closed, but our parent hospital is alive, well and running an entire research park.
> 
> And no, we made no money selling parts, because if you know where the gland in discussion is located, it cost us money to get to it - my salary, a pathologist's salary and extra bone saw blades. In essence, our hospital felt the treatment of dwarfism in children was worth the money it cost.
> 
> Now, do you think PP is losing money on their body parts?
> 
> Wiggle, worm, wiggle....


They don't have to lose money, they just can't make a profit. Have you watched the entire second video?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jolly said:


> From the transcript:
> 
> _So then youâre just kind of cognizant of where you put your graspers, you try to intentionally go above and below the thorax, so that, you know, weâve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so Iâm not gonna crush that part, Iâm going to basically crush below, Iâm gonna crush above, and Iâm gonna see if I can get it all intact. And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that itâs not vertex, because when itâs vertex presentation, you never have enough dilation at the beginning of the case, unless you have real, huge amount of dilation to deliver an intact calvarium.
> _ - Deborah Nucatola, M.D.
> 
> Calvarium is a doctory way of saying head. Vertex presentation is a normal presentation, i.e., head first. Or, in other words, sometimes they have to change the presentation in order to kill the child in a more organ friendly way.
> 
> Humans reduced to meat. Placed in a freezer like so many pieces of hamburger or flung in the trash to be hauled to the dumpster. If only Josef Mengele could see us now.
> 
> The philosophy of man-as-meat is not long compatible with liberty or human dignity.
> 
> According to a guitar-wielding poet of the 60's, you're gonna have to serve somebody. Now it might be the Devil or it might be the Lord, but serve you will...


Post of the day award.

Reminded me of Wendy Davis's ardent followers. She was running for gov of TX, 1 of her main stances was preserving the right to abortion after 20 wks. Most noble cause, huh. And her followers marched around the Capitol chanting: "Hail satan".
I suppose dems are still wondering why she didn't get elected, couldn't have been that + all her lies.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> They don't have to lose money, they just can't make a profit. Have you watched the entire second video?


I'm sure they aren't making a profit - on paper. But I'm sure they are charging "cost".

And that's where I think we run into trouble. I don't think PP is so altruistic, they'd leave money on the table.

Until they furnish a Cost Table, which should be an easy thing to do, I prefer to think they are making a profit, albeit hidden. Can I prove that? No. But a bit of sunshine into their affairs wouldn't hurt.

After all, it's our money...


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> I'm sure they aren't making a profit - on paper. But I'm sure they are charging "cost".
> 
> And that's where I think we run into trouble. I don't think PP is so altruistic, they'd leave money on the table.
> 
> Until they furnish a Cost Table, which should be an easy thing to do, I prefer to think they are making a profit, albeit hidden. Can I prove that? No. But a bit of sunshine into their affairs wouldn't hurt.
> 
> After all, it's our money...


That would be your opinion with no facts to back it up. These videos offer propaganda and talking points with no proof behind them.

You prefer to think they are making a profit. I think there will be lots of sunshine and the actors and group behind them will look like fools again.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> I'm sure they aren't making a profit - on paper. But I'm sure they are charging "cost".
> 
> And that's where I think we run into trouble. I don't think PP is so altruistic, they'd leave money on the table.
> 
> Until they furnish a Cost Table, which should be an easy thing to do, I prefer to think they are making a profit, albeit hidden.
> 
> * Can I prove that? No*.
> 
> But a bit of sunshine into their affairs wouldn't hurt.
> 
> After all, it's our money...


There's plenty of Sunshine but you still refuse to see it.

At least you finally admitted *you have no proof* of anything you've claimed

That's a start

Now read the transcript and you will see why there is no "cost table" until all the details are finalized.

You're expecting some sort of itemized, binding contract when this was nothing but a sham during lunch hour


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Many were excited to see the new videos come out

I found this part interesting, bit I'm certain some will pretend it's not there, or that it's just my "interpretation":

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/19/abby-johnson-planned-parenthood-defector-loophole-/



> Based on her experience, Ms Johnson says she saw NOTHING in the video to indicate Planned Parenthood is breaking the law


----------



## Oxankle

The circumstances of the video are of no consequence--No one denies that the woman speaking was a planned parenthood official, and no one has claimed that what she said was false. 

The simple fact is that she told us that PP was selling/distributing/providing for money the body parts of the children they killed. 

Whether these ghouls make a profit on the gruesome trade is immaterial--but you know damned well they are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts---if they even have what humans consider a heart.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many were excited to see the new videos come out
> 
> I found this part interesting, bit I'm certain some will pretend it's not there, or that it's just my "interpretation":
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/19/abby-johnson-planned-parenthood-defector-loophole-/


This is also in the article, considering PP determine their price on difficulty of a procedure not just actual martial costs it still leaves questions on the motive and the profitability. 

âThe law currently states that there can be moneys exchanged as long as they fit under certain categories like preservation, collection, storage, transport, etc.,â Ms. Johnson said. âAnd the law says there is not a maximum amount that can be charged or a minimum amount but that costs cannot be prohibitive. And thatâs very subjective.â

(Corrected paragraphMs. Johnson does not support the use of fetal-tissue for research.

âThey [clinics] could say, âWell, itâs more difficult for me to harvest a brain than it is for me to harvest a kidney, so that collection fee is going to be $1,000 for a brain, whereas itâs only going to be $400 for a kidney,ââ Ms. Johnson said. âAnd the problem is that itâs so subjective, the amount of money that can be charged. Thatâs really where we need reform.â


----------



## painterswife

Oxankle said:


> The circumstances of the video are of no consequence--No one denies that the woman speaking was a planned parenthood official, and no one has claimed that what she said was false.
> 
> The simple fact is that she told us that PP was selling/distributing/providing for money the body parts of the children they killed.
> 
> Whether these ghouls make a profit on the gruesome trade is immaterial--but you know damned well they are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts---if they even have what humans consider a heart.


 Researchers have been using aborted fetal tissue for decades. It benefits medical advancements. That is a good thing.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Researchers have been using aborted fetal tissue for decades. It benefits medical advancements. That is a good thing.


That's the same logic that's justified all kinds of practices by doctors and scientists for centuries. On its surface it sounds like a great point. Yet, for centuries some practices were brought to the public's attention and later outlawed because societies determined the ends don't always justify the means.


----------



## J.T.M.

Oxankle said:


> The circumstances of the video are of no consequence--No one denies that the woman speaking was a planned parenthood official, and no one has claimed that what she said was false.
> 
> *The simple fact is that she told us that PP was selling/distributing/providing for money the body parts of the children they killed. *
> 
> Whether these ghouls make a profit on the gruesome trade is immaterial--but you know damned well they are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts---if they even have what humans consider a heart.


 What gets me about this whole ordeal is that she stated this fact ( bold ) while nonchalantly eating a designer salad . I mean , even Jeffrey Dahmer got a little " wobbly in the knees " while discussing his life of serial killing :/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> This is also in the article, considering PP determine their price on difficulty of a procedure not just actual martial costs it still leaves questions on the motive and the profitability.





> &#8220;They [clinics] *could *say, &#8216;Well, it&#8217;s more difficult for me to harvest a brain than it is for me to harvest a kidney, so that collection fee is going to be $1,000 for a brain, whereas it&#8217;s only going to be $400 for a kidney,&#8217;&#8221; Ms. Johnson said. &#8220;And the problem is that it&#8217;s so subjective, the amount of money that can be charged. That&#8217;s really where we need reform.&#8221;


You do realize she fabricated those figures just as an example?
They are hypothetical

The first video said the costs were* per patient*, no matter how many samples were obtained, and much of the price variation was determined by who dealt with the consent forms, who provided the containers, who packaged the samples, and who provided the transport.

The actual figures given in what some say is "proof" of sales are mostly less than $100 unless you are silly enough to take the Lamborghini joke seriously

Page 4:



> PP: You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it&#8217;s probably
> anywhere from $30 to $100 [per specimen], depending on the facility and
> what&#8217;s involved.





> Buyer: And *what does per specimen mean* for Planned Parenthood? Is that, you
> guys consider that, a discrete sample.
> 
> 
> PP: *One case. One patient*, and again, there&#8217;s *different steps involved* too right?
> There&#8217;s who&#8217;s going to consent the patient to donate. It it&#8217;s staff, then that&#8217;s staff
> time, that gets figured into it, as opposed to if there&#8217;s someone that&#8217;s there, then
> it&#8217;s just flagging the interested or &#8220;eligible&#8221; patient and somebody else does the
> work. It&#8217;s basically for individual patient.
> 
> So, if you end up shipping four individual specimens, that&#8217;s still one patient.





> PP: That&#8217;s basically the way that they do their work.
> *The way they budget is by the amount of time they spend on one patient.*
> 
> That&#8217;s one bunch of tissue, they handle the tissue, they do what they do, you know, in that way, so. But yea, that&#8217;s the way- It depends, *if you&#8217;re expecting somebody to process, and package, identify tissue for you, it&#8217;s going to be at the higher end of the range.*
> In all cases, it&#8217;s really gonna be about staff time, because that&#8217;s the only cost to the affiliate.
> And then, if you want space. For example, it is, it&#8217;s Novogenix is at PPLA, they
> have a corner of the lab.
> 
> And *they set up, come in with their coolers and
> everything, and handle all the tissue*, but they&#8217;re taking up space, so I&#8217;m sure the
> affiliate considers that when they come up with what&#8217;s reasonable.
> 
> But I don&#8217;t think anybody&#8217;s gonna come up with a crazy number, because they&#8217;re all very
> sensitive to this too. *And at the end of the day, they want to offer this service
> because patients ask about it*.


The answers to different prices are all there, with no "interpretation" needed aside from normal reading skills.

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf


----------



## Jolly

gibbsgirl said:


> That's the same logic that's justified all kinds of practices by doctors and scientists for centuries. On its surface it sounds like a great point. Yet, for centuries some practices were brought to the public's attention and later outlawed because societies determined the ends don't always justify the means.


Therefore, the ends justify the means?

How about live dissection of a one year-old?

Or stacking a pre-determined weight on pregnant women's bellies and timing how long it took them to abort?

How about sewing two twins together? Or maybe amputating a child's limb without anesthesia, just to gauge pain tolerance?

Ok, you say that none of these barbarous acts led to any real medical knowledge. Maybe you're right. Maybe you would be wrong.

However, one major fact was learned in experiments carried out by the same folks that performed the above experiments...medical science learned at approximately what temp death would occur by freezing. This allowed people to plan better, when it came to dressing for extreme cold and how much heat was actually needed to keep people alive.

OTOH, Mengele had to freeze an awful lot of Jews to death to arrive at that 25 degree figure.

But when humans are just another piece of meat, does it really matter? Not really, no.

When people refuse to study history, it is no wonder they are doomed to repeat it... 

Guy looks like he could run a PP clinic, doesn't he?


----------



## WildernesFamily

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's nothing illegal about a Dr performing any *normal* procedure they choose.
> 
> Nothing dictates the precise methods as long as they are all legal methods


On the contrary:-



> He pointed to the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, which stipulates âno alteration of the timing, method or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.â
> âThe video explicitly describes how they are changing the abortion in order to provide good tissue samples,â he said.
> 
> Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-new...-parenthoods-fetal-parts-trade/#ixzz3gYlKefFe
> ​



​


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> You do realize she fabricated those figures just as an example?
> They are hypothetical
> 
> The first video said the costs were* per patient*, no matter how many samples were obtained, and much of the price variation was determined by who dealt with the consent forms, who provided the containers, who packaged the samples, and who provided the transport.
> 
> The actual figures given in what some say is "proof" of sales are mostly less than $100 unless you are silly enough to take the Lamborghini joke seriously
> 
> Page 4:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answers to different prices are all there, with no "interpretation" needed aside from normal reading skills.
> 
> http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf


Yep, but I did read it and understood it was an example just as the figures in the video were examples. Neither is proof, but enough to question their motive and profitability in determining labor cost factors to comply with tax laws (which govern non profit status). Every one at at Planned Parenthood makes a profit unless they are working in a strictly volunteer capacity. I doubt seriously that their motives are altruistic, my opinion. It is a business and part of that business sells fetal tissue and organs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Quote:
> He pointed to the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, which stipulates &#8220;no alteration of the timing, method or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.&#8221;
> &#8220;The video explicitly describes how they are changing the abortion in order to provide good tissue samples,&#8221; he said.


They aren't "altering" anything if they decide before they start to choose one method over another, since they are all legal methods

They can't change in the middle of a procedure, and they can't wait for further dilation just to get what they want, but they can use any acceptable method in a timely manner

Once again, it's all detailed in the transcript, but it requires actually reading it


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> That's the same logic that's justified all kinds of practices by doctors and scientists for centuries. On its surface it sounds like a great point. Yet, for centuries some practices were brought to the public's attention and later outlawed because societies determined the ends don't always justify the means.


Actually it was meant to show that they have been doing this for decades and have not broken any laws.

I have no problem with them using fetal tissue from abortions just as I have no problem with them using tissue from other people that have died. You may have a problem with the abortion itself but making it about using the tissue after the abortion is a strawman argument.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Yep, but I did read it and understood it was an example just as the figures in the video were examples. *Neither is proof*, but enough to question their motive and profitability in determining labor cost factors to comply with tax laws (which govern non profit status). Every one at at Planned Parenthood makes a profit unless they are working in a strictly volunteer capacity. I doubt seriously that their motives are altruistic, my opinion. It is a business and *part of that business sells fetal tissue and organs*.


No.... they do not, based on the "proof" presented, so why keep making the allegation?

You said yourself the videos aren't proof

Of course there are people who get paid, but it's still a non profit organization.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Actually it was meant to show that they have been doing this for decades and have not broken any laws.
> 
> I have no problem with them using fetal tissue from abortions just as I have no problem with them using tissue from other people that have died. You may have a problem with the abortion itself but making it about using the tissue after the abortion is a strawman argument.


I doubt that all the mothers who have aborted would agree with you, or I, or even each other. So, I like the idea of these practices being examined more closely by the public. Then, society has a chance to weigh in on what should be legal and if laws are being circumvented, and mothers can understand better what they are consenting to.


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> Actually it was meant to show that they have been doing this for decades and have not broken any laws.
> 
> I have no problem with them using fetal tissue from abortions just as I have no problem with them using tissue from other people that have died. You may have a problem with the abortion itself but making it about using the tissue after the abortion is a strawman argument.


Now that is down right confessing, although there has been a lot of the normal thread drift, was not the opening of the thread about the farming and use of fetal tissue and organs........ strawman nope.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> I doubt that all the mothers who have aborted would agree with you, or I, or even each other. So, I like the idea of these practices being examined more closely by the public. Then, society has a chance to weigh in on what should be legal and if laws are being circumvented, and mothers can understand better what they are consenting to.


They have to sign a consent form to donate the tissue. So if they don't agree, they do not donate. Nothing wrong with practises being examined. it is this propaganda witch hunt and the telling and repeating of lies and strawmen arguments that is the problem.


----------



## Jolly

In 2013, $540.6M of Planned Parenthood's $1.21B budget was derived from government money of one kind or another.

If PP doesn't want anybody to shake their tree, quit taking the public's money...


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> No.... they do not, based on the "proof" presented, so why keep making the allegation?
> 
> You said yourself the videos aren't proof
> 
> Of course there are people who get paid, but it's still a non profit organization.


I have not seen proof, just denial by those with prejudicial views. I say it warrants investigation in my opinion. You seem to think taking the word of the accused is sufficient.

The exchange of services is a sale.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> They have to sign a consent form to donate the tissue. So if they don't agree, they do not donate. Nothing wrong with practises being examined. it is this propaganda witch hunt and the telling and repeating of lies and strawmen arguments that is the problem.


I don't think that most people have what I'd call a bulletproof understanding of all the consents, terms of service, contracts, etc that we're all expected to sign for any business transactions. And, frequently, those that require signatures do so for their own benefit, not that of the person signing. Add, to that most people are rushed to sign and pressured to just accept a quick explanation by the party seeking protection legally, so said parties frequently dismiss concerns and supply verbal half truths to ensure cooperation.

So, no I don't think just getting someone's john Hancock represents a thorough and complete dissemination of information. People need to take personal responsibility, but our consent happy society is handicapping people's ability to do so in many ways. And, I find that unproductive towards accomplishing that goal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Then, society has a chance to weigh in on what should be legal and if laws are being circumvented, and *mothers can understand* better what they are consenting to.


Society has weighed in.
That's why abortions are legal

You are constantly saying "they don't understand", and then saying "they are smart enough to figure it out"

You like to play both ends against the middle

They are capable of understanding, and the laws dictate that they be informed and give their consent.

If you can figure it out, so can anyone else


----------



## Jolly

Hey, no Lamborghinis for you!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=59&v=MjCs_gvImyw


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Society has weighed in.
> That's why abortions are legal
> 
> You are constantly saying "they don't understand", and then saying "they are smart enough to figure it out"
> 
> You like to play both ends against the middle
> 
> They are capable of understanding, and the laws dictate that they be informed and give their consent.
> 
> If you can figure it out, so can anyone else


I see all the time that people are ignorant of many things. Some are frustrated because they know it and have a hard time figuring out how to be less ignorant about something. Some don't even realize they are ignorant and I find that particularly sad. So, as soon as the problem of ignorance stops being a problem, I'll quit bringing it up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> *I have not seen proof*, just denial by those with prejudicial views. I say it warrants investigation in my opinion.
> 
> *You seem to think taking the word of the accused is sufficient.*
> 
> The exchange of services is a sale.


There's been no proof shown of any sales in a highly regulated, long term business.

You seem to think taking the word of confirmed liars is sufficient :shrug:

I have used the words of the "accused" while they were speaking to your liars to refute all the claims made. 

In the end, all you have is the liars, and it's laughable you would mention prejudicial views at all, since one side is doing most of the "judging"


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> I see all the time that people are ignorant of many things. Some are frustrated because they know it and have a hard time figuring out how to be less ignorant about something. Some don't even realize they are ignorant and I find that particularly sad. So, as soon as the problem of ignorance stops being a problem, I'll quit bringing it up.


Then talk about the actualities of abortion and consent forms etc. and maybe slow down on the telling how ignorant they are and your opinion on that. Your posts spend way more time telling them that, then information they might be able to use.


----------



## WildernesFamily

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't "altering" anything if they decide before they start to choose one method over another, since they are all legal methods
> 
> They can't change in the middle of a procedure, and they can't wait for further dilation just to get what they want, but they can use any acceptable method in a timely manner
> 
> Once again, it's all detailed in the transcript, but it requires actually reading it


Oh yeah, here's those parts:



> Gatter: So thatâs an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem, if our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then weâre kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient, âWeâre not doing anything different in our care of you.â Now to me, thatâs kind of a specious little argument and I wouldnât object to asking Ian, whoâs our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS at that gestational age *in order to increase the odds* that heâs going to get an intact specimen, but I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing something and weâre signing something saying that weâre not changing anything with the way weâre managing you, just because we agree to give tissue. Youâve heard that before.


and




> Buyer: Definitely, yea that would be helpful. So even though you donât have high volume, I see that their are other niches you could fill for us. Donât you think so?
> Gatter: Here is my suggestion. Write me a three of four paragraph proposal, which I will then take to Laurel and the organization to see if we want to proceed with this. And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I talk to Ian and see how he feels about using a âless crunchyâ technique *to get more* whole specimens. Then, if we agree to move forward, the steps, I would need to apply for a waiver at PPFA, in order to do this, we need to have a contract, do you have a contract?


From the transcript: http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFA020615_transcript.pdf


Hm. Sure sounds like they would be open to altering their usual methods in order to GET MORE whole specimens, doesn't it?


----------



## kasilofhome

Reading skills might vary


----------



## Guest

More reading pleasre, the figures were gleaned from pps anual report by a pro life organization, in fairness of desclosure.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015...nnual-report-all-about-abortions-and-profits/

SBA-List concludes that, &#8220;for every adoption referral, Planned Parenthood performed 174 abortions.&#8221; The pro-life group also observes that &#8220;adoption referrals by Planned Parenthood dropped 14 percent in one year, and prenatal care services dropped 4 percent.&#8221; Additionally, Planned Parenthood&#8217;s cancer prevention services fell 17 percent in the past year.

Despite these declines in provided services,_ Planned Parenthood reports more than $127 million in excess revenue, and over $1.4 billion in net assets._


----------



## kasilofhome

dlmcafee said:


> More reading pleasre, the figures were gleaned from pps anual report by a pro life organization, in fairness of desclosure.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015...nnual-report-all-about-abortions-and-profits/
> 
> SBA-List concludes that, âfor every adoption referral, Planned Parenthood performed 174 abortions.â The pro-life group also observes that âadoption referrals by Planned Parenthood dropped 14 percent in one year, and prenatal care services dropped 4 percent.â Additionally, Planned Parenthoodâs cancer prevention services fell 17 percent in the past year.
> 
> Despite these declines in provided services,_ Planned Parenthood reports more than $127 million in excess revenue, and over $1.4 billion in net assets._


So. How did they do that?


----------



## WildernesFamily

painterswife said:


> I have watched the entire over one hour video. Have you? The cut and paste "press release" video again is a propaganda video meant to give a few misleading talking points.


No, but I have read the whole transcript.

The haggling over prices is still there. There would be no haggling if it was just a cut and dried cost reimbursement. She wouldn't come out and say "let me see what others are getting and if this is low we can bump it up." No, she would instead be saying - "let me see what the cost to us will be so we can make sure we are getting fully reimbursed." This is like the people on craigslist getting around the no selling of pets on CL policy by charging an exorbitant "adoption" or "re-homing" fee.

And if the people behind the videos were such terrible liars they would just put out the summary videos and leave it at that. They wouldn't publish the full video and a full transcript.


----------



## painterswife

WildernesFamily said:


> Oh yeah, here's those parts:
> 
> and
> 
> 
> From the transcript: http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFA020615_transcript.pdf
> 
> 
> Hm. Sure sounds like they would be open to altering their usual methods in order to GET MORE whole specimens, doesn't it?


Exactly. She is not going to agree to have anyone do anything different just to get better specimens unless it is okay with the patient and the doctor. She is following the rules and is being very persistent in making that point even though the actors try and get her to give them talking points.


----------



## painterswife

WildernesFamily said:


> No, but I have read the whole transcript.
> 
> The haggling over prices is still there. There would be no haggling if it was just a cut and dried cost reimbursement. She wouldn't come out and say "let me see what others are getting and if this is low we can bump it up." No, she would instead be saying - "let me see what the cost to us will be so we can make sure we are getting fully reimbursed." This is like the people on craigslist getting around the no selling of pets on CL policy by charging an exorbitant "adoption" or "re-homing" fee.
> 
> And if the people behind the videos were such terrible liars they would just put out the summary videos and leave it at that. They wouldn't publish the full video and a full transcript.


Reading the transcripts is like reading the posts on here. You don't always get the nuances of the conversation. She did not haggle. She said what they are or were getting and said she would have to talk to the management and other places to see if it was fair. They even discussed how they might even do work and get no viable specimens and therefore no money.

Do you have a link to the newest videos transcript?


----------



## kasilofhome

:cute:


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

painterswife said:


> Actually it was meant to show that they have been doing this for decades and have not broken any laws.
> 
> I have no problem with them using fetal tissue from abortions just as I have no problem with them using tissue from other people that have died. You may have a problem with the abortion itself but making it about using the tissue after the abortion is a strawman argument.


For someone who's hobby is building strawmen, i find it surprising that you don't actually understand the definition of a strawman argument. 

It's when you build up a false argument with the implication that it is what the other side is arguing, just so you can use it as a target for your own point. People who believe in life at conception having an issue with the use of the tissues after the murder is not a strawman argument. It is our souls' gag-reflex. 

But, to your greater point, I agree. To me, the real issue is not what they do with the corpses, but, rather, how those living beings became corpses in the first place. 

Likewise, I say let OJ keep the profits from "If I did it...". After all, he can't take his gold with him, and he will be judged.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Then talk about the actualities of abortion and consent forms etc. and maybe slow down on the telling how ignorant they are and your opinion on that. Your posts spend way more time telling them that, then information they might be able to use.


OK. Here's a bit of specifics. I don't think women generally are very well versed in what some of the short and long-term ng term side effects physically and emotionally they may face after an abortion. I don't like that.

1. That might influence their decision to keep the child 

2. If they do the abortion, it could help women to recognize they might be having a complication from an abortion sooner so they could receive treatment faster.

It's not easy for drs to determine when a woman is having typical female problems vs an abnormal problem that should be investigated and treated. Many times, those overlooked issues have to do with out reproductive system because what's normal can vary widely.

So, I think women are done a disservice by not being giving enough counsel from their healthcare providers to help them determine when they should realize it's time to ask for help because they may be experiencing a complication after an abortion.

I don't deny they receive some. But, I think it's not adequate and that could be improved.


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> For someone who's hobby is building strawmen, i find it surprising that you don't actually understand the definition of a strawman argument.
> 
> It's when you build up a false argument with the implication that it is what the other side is arguing, just so you can use it as a target for your own point. People who believe in life at conception having an issue with the use of the tissues after the murder is not a strawman argument. It is our souls' gag-reflex.
> 
> But, to your greater point, I agree. To me, the real issue is not what they do with the corpses, but, rather, how those living beings became corpses in the first place.
> 
> Likewise, I say let OJ keep the profits from "If I did it...". After all, he can't take his gold with him, and he will be judged.


:rotfl:


----------



## Patchouli

gibbsgirl said:


> I respect your feelings as being true to you.
> 
> My feelings about people hearing different things is that perhaps they are not clearly discerning things all the time. And, perhaps God prompts and answers things differently because they have different needs and he has different plans for them. We',re all individuals with our own lives afterall.
> 
> We also all have varying levels of openness to his guidance as we got through life in my opinion.
> 
> That's how I feel anyway.


Seems to me God would work a little harder at getting everyone on the same page since Christians kill other Christians over what God tells them.


----------



## Patchouli

Jolly said:


> I've helped compile charge lists for hospitals. Never have we had varying charges for a cholescystectomy or other common procedures. Reimbursement dictates that. Varying charges for additional procedures, yes, but I doubt very seriously whether PP's procedure varies very much, from patient to patient.
> 
> Besides, the people who are the recipients of the tissue are not going to pay for variables in procedures. The dollar amount will be set in the contract...And I assure you, a contract exists.


Surely you aren't saying charges never vary from hospital to hospital? Because that would be untrue and easily disproved. The costs varied from clinic to clinic that was affiliated with PP. Perfectly normal.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Patchouli said:


> Seems to me God would work a little harder at getting everyone on the same page since Christians kill other Christians over what God tells them.


I have no idea of God's plans or reasonings, nor do I claim to. I can only say I have thoughts on possibilities, and am resigned to accepting I don't need to understand it all.

Also, I'm not sure what is unique about Christians being enemies of one another. It is very common across all faiths to have in ghting. In fact, frequently it can be some of the most volatile and intense battling. Not unlike how domestic violence crimes are sometimes the most dangerous crimes for law enforcement to intervene in.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Society has weighed in.
> That's why abortions are legal


I know that you've already tried to take the Mengele-comparison off the table, for this discussion, as an emotional hot button with no real substance, but his actions, and the actions of planned parenthood are actually in direct parallel. But, for the sake of your sensibilities, I'll refer to him henceforth as Dr. Shmengele. 

Dr. Shemengele perpetrated some heinous atrocities. On that, everyone agrees. Except...German society circa 1943-4. At the time, live dissection of infant "children" was perfectly legal in his society, so long as the "children" weren't "children" at all, and were, rather, a member of some sub-human race such as the Slavs, Jews, or mentally or physically deficient in some way. In fact, the German people paid his salary, and the salaries of his assistants, and paid for his tools and equipment with their tax francs. 

Dr. Shmengele was a hero in his place and time. 

Let that sit a minute. Dr. Shmengele was a hero in his place and time. I'll wait. 


Ok. Back to our story. 
So, for about 18 months, Dr. Shmengele was living his storybook-hero's life in service to his people, working in a lab that only the greatest super-villain could dare dream of. 

But, then, trouble showed itself on the horizon. On 6 June 1944 the angel by the name of Shmunited Shmates Shmarmy landed on the western shores of Dr. Smengele's society's empire. This put them at a disadvantaged position in holding back the arch-angel Smoviets on their eastern front. The society that allowed, no applauded, his experimentation on Jewish infants, began to realize that it's days were numbered. 

Dr. Shmengele, ever the devotee to his society's grand notions of advancing the master race, often at the cost of the non-human, stayed the course. He held his wheelhouse, doing everything he could to bring glory to the master-race (in our modern parallel, we'll call them "Schmiberals") until mere moments before the arch-angel Schmoviets overtook his lab. 

Then he did what any hero, devoted to doing the works deemed by his society to be great and necessary, would do- he fled. He changed his clothes, he changed his appearance, he changed his name, and he attempted to hide his face from the Angels. 

And he got away with it...so it would seem. A hero to his people, a spineless society of narcissists and self-supremicists (think: Schmiberals) never trifled to turn him in. The victims of his crimes, the meek, never found him. No, Dr. Schmengele lived out his days in relative comfort and peace. His judgment was reserved. 

Now, as much as this story may seem like one without the requisite happy ending. It's that reservation of judgment that gives me solace. Dr. Schmengele's judgment was reserved, and it was just. 

I won't have to see him where I'm going. 
Tell him I said "hi".


----------



## Patchouli

gibbsgirl said:


> I have no idea of God's plans or reasonings, nor do I claim to. I can only say I have thoughts on possibilities, and am resigned to accepting I don't need to understand it all.
> 
> Also, I'm not sure what is unique about Christians being enemies of one another. It is very common across all faiths to have in ghting. In fact, frequently it can be some of the most volatile and intense battling. Not unlike how domestic violence crimes are sometimes the most dangerous crimes for law enforcement to intervene in.


Oh I agree on religious people fighting holy wars. It's a real problem. My point though is one would assume an all powerful God would make sure there were no misunderstandings. Unless of course he just enjoys seeing his followers kill each other over things like whether or not the bread and wine are really Jesus' flesh and blood or whether or not the Holy Spirit actually proceeds from just God the father or Jesus too.


----------



## Patchouli

Trying to compare Josef Mengele's atrocities perpetrated on live subjects to research on dead human tissue may be the most absurd argument trotted out ever by a pro-lifer. That one pretty well takes the cake.


----------



## painterswife

Patchouli said:


> Trying to compare Josef Mengele's atrocities perpetrated on live subjects to research on dead human tissue may be the most absurd argument trotted out ever by a pro-lifer. That one pretty well takes the cake.


Strawmen popping up alll over.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Patchouli said:


> Trying to compare Josef Mengele's atrocities perpetrated on live subjects to research on dead human tissue may be the most absurd argument trotted out ever by a pro-lifer. That one pretty well takes the cake.


This "tissue" that is being debated here was once part of a living being. A living being that felt pain, and made bodily motions to try to avoid the executioners' tools. 

The comparison is perfectly valid. 

I accept that I can't change your mind. But, He demands that I speak the truth wherever I see it, and He will reveal it to you someday where I have failed. 

He will. You'll see. And it's gonna hurt like hell. 
(no pun intended. (Well, kinda. (Doesn't matter anyway)))


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> Seems to me God would work a little harder at getting everyone on the same page since Christians kill other Christians over what God tells them.


You already believe about those kinds of individuals what is obviously true... they listened to their own selfish desires. What's there to blame God for or debate about that?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Hm. Sure sounds like they would be open to *altering* their usual methods in order to GET MORE whole specimens, doesn't it?


Do you think repeating the same things is going to change the answers?
They aren't "altering" anything if they are using an accepted method

We already had this conversation


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> In 2013, $540.6M of Planned Parenthood's $1.21B budget was derived from government money of one kind or another.
> 
> If PP doesn't want anybody to shake their tree, quit taking the public's money...


None of the Federal money was spent on abortions, and abortions are only about 4% of their budget.

The only ones "shaking the tree" are a bunch of admitted liars with a political agenda


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> SBA-List concludes that, â*for every adoption referral*, Planned Parenthood performed 174 abortions.â


They provide the services.

They don't decide who uses which service

That's up to the Mothers


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I know that you've already tried to take the Mengele-comparison off the table, for this discussion, as *an emotional hot button with no real substance*, but his actions, and the actions of planned parenthood are actually in direct parallel. But, for the sake of your sensibilities, I'll refer to him henceforth as Dr. Shmengele.


Call him anything you like, if you think silly names will change anything
It has nothing to do with this topic.

If you are a big believer in "honesty" why don't you just come right out and tell people they are going to Hell instead of trying to be cute about it? 

You've told two already in your round about way


----------



## dixiegal62

Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then itâs fine, if itâs still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.â
Enough said period.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then itâs fine, if itâs still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.â
> Enough said period.


Watch the unedited video. It was a joke and the video makers are playing people who will not watch the whole thing likd a fiddle. 

Do your homework folks and stop being fed crap like the chumps they expect you to be.


----------



## Oxankle

Yes, Bearfoot, it does. Mengele did exactly what the body-parts-scavengers are doing--he took the remains of murdered humans for experimental uses, and some he had murdered just for their parts. The Witch of Buchenwald used human skin for lampshades; the people who killed her prey were no more barbaric than the butchers of Planned Parenthood.


----------



## kasilofhome

dixiegal62 said:


> Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then itâs fine, if itâs still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.â
> Enough said period.


Yep, seems there are clues.... but we're told we are reading to much into the words.....


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

......
trying to put my post up but I keep getting an access-denied response of some sort.


EDIT: the issue only happens when I try to include a quote from BearFoot. Maybe he put me on ignore. That'd be a shame. I'd really like to see his response.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

I don't know if you're going to heaven or hell, or, in fact, where Joseph Mengele went. That's between him and God and you and God. I've got my own test to worry about.

To be truthful, I can't tell you for sure if there is a heaven or hell, or what comes after this. If you'd seen some of my previous posts, you'd see I've run aground with many of the faithful on this board for not sharing the conventional biblical sensibilities, in the past (I don't consider God and the bible to be mutually inclusive). I also go against the current on a lot of the "accepted" conservative views.

I'll be the first to admit that there's a lot that I don't know. But I do know the following, as pertaining to this discussion:

- God loves us, and we are subject to his judgment.
- His judgment is absolute and its scope is infinite. So is his love.
- These babies being "aborted" are alive. Living human beings.
- The procedure you call "abortion" is their murder.

These are all facts, not subject to interpretation or debate. These are truths. 

But, put aside our thoughts on God for the moment. I've got my own to worry about, and don't have time to straighten out yours. Not my charge. 

Rather, address what was clearly the point of my response to you. Your "out" for why the murder of unborn children is acceptable was because we call it "abortion", and "abortion" is legal.

By comparison, what Dr. Schmengele was doing, at the time and in that place, was legal. His society accepted what he was doing. In fact, they applauded him for it.

Considering that both legal actions involved the killing and inflicted-suffering of innocents in order to achieve the advancement of those deemed-worthy by that self-same society, how can you draw a line between what Shmengele did and what the murderers of unborn children are doing today? How do the Schmiberals reconcile that?


----------



## Tricky Grama

gibbsgirl said:


> I see all the time that people are ignorant of many things. Some are frustrated because they know it and have a hard time figuring out how to be less ignorant about something. Some don't even realize they are ignorant and I find that particularly sad. So, as soon as the problem of ignorance stops being a problem, I'll quit bringing it up.


This is a big peeve of mine too. I am not sure if fetal development is taught in school anymore & no one knows the appearance of the unborn at 8 wks, 10 wks, 12.
There should be counseling b/4 w/info to make an informed decision. But progressives fight this tooth & nail. Or tooth & kidney. They are NOT for education, they are sooo afraid women will see the truth & decide not to abort.


----------



## Patchouli

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> This "tissue" that is being debated here was once part of a living being. A living being that felt pain, and made bodily motions to try to avoid the executioners' tools.
> 
> The comparison is perfectly valid.
> 
> I accept that I can't change your mind. But, He demands that I speak the truth wherever I see it, and He will reveal it to you someday where I have failed.
> 
> He will. You'll see. And it's gonna hurt like hell.
> (no pun intended. (Well, kinda. (Doesn't matter anyway)))


Or not.


----------



## Shine

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ......
> trying to put my post up but I keep getting an access-denied response of some sort.
> 
> 
> EDIT: the issue only happens when I try to include a quote from BearFoot. Maybe he put me on ignore. That'd be a shame. I'd really like to see his response.



Must be striking close to a selected hiding spot...

But... of course I will be told that I am wrong and that there is a citation missing...


----------



## Patchouli

Most fetuses are aborted before 12 weeks. 89%. They can't see, they can't feel. If you lost a pregnancy pre-12 weeks you would be hard pressed to tell the fetus is even human. 26% of those early abortions are done via medication. Neither is painful to the fetus. The anethesia given to women having abortions does cross the placents and does affect the fetus too so even if it was possible it felt pain it wouldn't because it would be sedated.

Fetal pain is generally agreed on by doctors to start to be possible at 20-24 weeks. Only 1.5% of abortions happen after this time. So the whole fuss about pain and torture is just yet another falsehood spread by pro-lifers. Interestingly enough when it was proposed that late term abortions use a pain killer specifically for the fetus pro-lifers shot it down. They went the all or nothing route of trying to get all abortions post 20 weeks banned period.

So again the comparisons to Mengele's experiments is utterly absurd. He experimented on men, women and children over periods of days, weeks and even months. He tortured them. It was horrific. There is no comparison. None and you trivialize your own arguments when you trot out stuff like this.


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> Must be striking close to a selected hiding spot...
> 
> But... of course I will be told that I am wrong and that there is a citation missing...


I have no idea what you are trying to imply here.


----------



## Guest

"Fetal pain is generally agreed on by doctors to start to be possible at 20-24 weeks. Only 1.5% of abortions happen after this time. So the whole fuss about pain and torture is just yet another falsehood spread by pro-lifers"

Ahhh,,, so it's only a bit over 9000 so far this year. That comforts me,,not.


----------



## Shine

Patchouli said:


> Most fetuses are aborted before 12 weeks. 89%. They can't see, they can't feel. If you lost a pregnancy pre-12 weeks you would be hard pressed to tell the fetus is even human. 26% of those early abortions are done via medication. Neither is painful to the fetus. The anethesia given to women having abortions does cross the placents and does affect the fetus too so even if it was possible it felt pain it wouldn't because it would be sedated.
> 
> Fetal pain is generally agreed on by doctors to start to be possible at 20-24 weeks. Only 1.5% of abortions happen after this time. So the whole fuss about pain and torture is just yet another falsehood spread by pro-lifers. Interestingly enough when it was proposed that late term abortions use a pain killer specifically for the fetus pro-lifers shot it down. They went the all or nothing route of trying to get all abortions post 20 weeks banned period.
> 
> So again the comparisons to Mengele's experiments is utterly absurd. He experimented on men, women and children over periods of days, weeks and even months. He tortured them. It was horrific. There is no comparison. None and you trivialize your own arguments when you trot out stuff like this.


http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-12-weeks

Maybe... just maybe...


----------



## Shine

Patchouli said:


> I have no idea what you are trying to imply here.


OK, I understand.


----------



## Woolieface

http://pregnancymomandbaby.com/tag/what-does-a-fetus-look-like-at-12-weeks/


----------



## Woolieface

Looks like a human baby to me...


----------



## Shine

Patchouli said:


> Most fetuses are aborted before 12 weeks. 89%. They can't see, they can't feel. If you lost a pregnancy pre-12 weeks you would be hard pressed to tell the fetus is even human. 26% of those early abortions are done via medication. Neither is painful to the fetus. The anethesia given to women having abortions does cross the placents and does affect the fetus too so even if it was possible it felt pain it wouldn't because it would be sedated.
> 
> Fetal pain is generally agreed on by doctors to start to be possible at 20-24 weeks. Only 1.5% of abortions happen after this time. So the whole fuss about pain and torture is just yet another falsehood spread by pro-lifers. Interestingly enough when it was proposed that late term abortions use a pain killer specifically for the fetus pro-lifers shot it down. They went the all or nothing route of trying to get all abortions post 20 weeks banned period.
> 
> So again the comparisons to Mengele's experiments is utterly absurd. He experimented on men, women and children over periods of days, weeks and even months. He tortured them. It was horrific. There is no comparison. None and you trivialize your own arguments when you trot out stuff like this.


It is not possible to measure pain directly in the fetus. Studies of stress responses can be used to give an index of the degree of trauma induced by different interventions, and also the response to analgesia or anaesthesia, but they do not indicate what the fetus actually experiences. The assessment of whether or when the fetus is likely to feel pain has to be based on an evaluation of the available anatomical and physiological evidence. The physical system for nociception is present and functional by 26 weeks and it seems likely that the fetus is capable of feeling pain from this stage. The first neurones to link the cortex with the rest of the brain are monoamine pathways, and reach the cortex from about 16 weeks of gestation. Their activation could be associated with unpleasant conscious experience, even if not pain. Thalamic fibres first penetrate the subplate zone at about 17 weeks of gestation, and the cortex at 20 weeks. These anatomical and physiological considerations are important, not only because of immediate suffering, but also because of possible long term adverse effects of this early experience. Research in these areas is urgently required.

Patcholi: -> Neither is painful to the fetus.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08424.x/full

Your research please?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Arguing about when and which babies exactly do it don't feel pain or experience stress, fear, etc is annoying to me when people say conclusively it doesn't happen or is so unlikely or minimal its essentially irrekevent.

We don't know for certain. So, I personally am more comfortable with the idea we should act with prudence and assume there is pain, etc rather than there isn't.

It reminds me of wh n I've watched care givers of patuents who act like a person must not need anything or be in pain because they didn't speak up for themselves.

That happens and it's so sad to see because people who are not in a position to advocate for thenselv s really are at the mercy of others to assist and protect them.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Oxankle said:


> Yes, Bearfoot, it does. Mengele did exactly what the body-parts-scavengers are doing--he took the remains of murdered humans for experimental uses, and some he had murdered just for their parts. The Witch of Buchenwald used human skin for lampshades; the people who killed her prey were no more barbaric than the butchers of Planned Parenthood.


Lame arguments just take away your credibility, and yours isn't even original


----------



## Bearfootfarm

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ......
> trying to put my post up but I keep getting an access-denied response of some sort.
> 
> 
> EDIT: the issue only happens when I try to include a quote from BearFoot. Maybe he put me on ignore. That'd be a shame. I'd really like to see his response.


I haven't put anyone on ignore.
Some things just don't merit a response



> These are all facts, not subject to interpretation or debate. These are truths.


You're confusing your personal "beliefs" with "fact".
Your beliefs are no more "truth" than anyone else's, and they apply only to you.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't put anyone on ignore.
> Some things just don't merit a response
> 
> 
> You're confusing your personal "beliefs" with "fact".
> Your beliefs are no more "truth" than anyone else's, and they apply only to you.


I think this does, as it's entirely relevant to the discussion, and I'd really like to hear your position on it. 

Your point was that "abortion" is acceptable, because society has deemed it acceptable (ie. legal). That's not a strawman, it's precisely the point you posited. It's in the record of this thread. 

My counter-point, distilled down to its basic argument, was that what Dr. Mengele did was "acceptable", as deemed legal by society in his place and time. 

So, the implied question is, does that make his actions "acceptable"?
I'm not saying that you think so, this is not a strawman, but, if you don't think Dr. Mengele's actions were "acceptable", how and where do you make the distinction between the two? If Megele's society's acceptance of his actions do not, somehow, make his actions acceptable, then is your point about the acceptability of "abortion" moot?

A fair question, I think, without any leading to an answer. I'd just like to know how you reconcile it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> My counter-point, distilled down to its basic argument, was that what Dr. Mengele did was "acceptable", as deemed legal by society in his place and time.


What he did was never "deemed legal"

He committed war crimes

Your entire premise is flawed, and WWII history has no bearing on here and now


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> In 2013, $540.6M of Planned Parenthood's $1.21B budget was derived from government money of one kind or another.
> 
> If PP doesn't want anybody to shake their tree, quit taking the public's money...


What happens to the abortion rate if an agency that provides low cost birth control is defunded? 

I've asked other "Ok with abortion on my terms" posters but they have failed to reply. 

Can you tell us based on your years of hospital experience what will happen?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Patchouli said:


> Trying to compare Josef Mengele's atrocities perpetrated on live subjects to research on dead human tissue may be the most absurd argument trotted out ever by a pro-lifer. That one pretty well takes the cake.


Yes, it is. Godwin's law at it's finest. When all else fails compare whatever to the Nazis. 

So lame it has become a cliche.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> What he did was never "deemed legal"
> 
> He committed war crimes
> 
> Your entire premise is flawed, and WWII history has no bearing on here and now


You're being obtuse again.

What he did was classed as war crimes after the fact. When he was in the process of his 'experiments', he obviously had the blessings of Hitler and the Nazi party. Remember, the Nazis were all about race superiority. He received a grant and built a laboratory next to the crematorium. What the heck, they were going to be exterminated anyway.


----------



## light rain

Bearfootfarm, history always has bearing on the here and now. I even believe there is even a famous quote on this subject. Something about doom and repetition...


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

So, let's grant you all of the figures you cited, for the sake of argument. What point does that really leave remaining?
_(all emphasis below is mine, not the OP's, and no text was removed)._



Patchouli said:


> *Most* fetuses are aborted before 12 weeks. *89%.* They can't see, they can't feel. .


Ok, so, most. What about the other 11%? Is that the acceptable threshold for "breaking some eggs"? Is it OK to murder children, in a way that they have awareness of their suffering, as long as at least 88% of the murders are committed in a painless way? 

Let's say an adult suffered from blindness, congenital analgesia, and had a bout of amnesia. Would it then be acceptable to kill that person? They can't see, they can't feel, and they don't know who they are. They have the organs of a human being, all the pieces and parts, but they couldn't be aware of what you were doing to them. Does their lack of awareness relegate them enough into "sub-human" status that their murder could be called "abortion", instead, and be legal under the law? 



Patchouli said:


> *If you lost a pregnancy pre-12 weeks you would be hard pressed to tell the fetus is even human.* 26% of those early abortions are done via medication. Neither is painful to the fetus. The anethesia given to women having abortions does cross the placents and does affect the fetus too so even if it was possible it felt pain it wouldn't because it would be sedated.


See, the thing here is, I would NOT be "hard-pressed" to tell the baby was human. I've seen ultrasounds at 12 weeks and earlier, and it is readily apparent to anyone not trying to hide their eyes in order to forgive _themselves _ of some horror allowed. 

Look at it. Force yourself to look at it, with open eyes. It's not a tumor, it's not a liver, it's not a piglet, and it's not a preying mantis- this much is obvious at 12 weeks and even earlier. 



Patchouli said:


> Fetal pain is generally agreed on by doctors to start to be possible at 20-24 weeks. *Only 1.5%* of abortions happen after this time. *So the whole fuss about pain and torture is just yet another falsehood spread by pro-lifers*.


So standing up against a heinous injustice that happens, according to your construct, _only 1.5%_ of the time is a "fuss" based on a "falsehood". You admit that it happens, but it is somehow still "false". How do you figure that? I'd like to see your math. 

As long as no more than 1.6% of the murdered children are aware enough to try to resist their executioner, then it is acceptable? Who drew that line? Is there a chart?

There is an acceptable level, according to His truth. I'll give you a hint: it's <0.0000000%.



Patchouli said:


> Interestingly enough when it was proposed that late term abortions use a pain killer specifically for the fetus pro-lifers shot it down. *They went the all or nothing route of trying to get all abortions post 20 weeks banned period*.


You're damned right.
Again, no pun intended. (well....)

And once we get post-20 week murders banned, we're having a party. We're gathering up all our printed materials, we're scratching out every "20", and writing in "19". You're invited to come help.



Patchouli said:


> So again the comparisons to Mengele's experiments is utterly absurd. He experimented on men, women and children over periods of days, weeks and even months. He tortured them. It was horrific. There is no comparison. None and you trivialize your own arguments when you trot out stuff like this.


And, now, here we are back to Mengele. 
Your platitudes about his particular level of heinousness aside, his place in this conversation is the parallel between what he did, and what the children murderers of today do: namely the murder of defenseless innocents under the guise of state-sanction, and the advancement of society. 

I've previously stated my belief that the relativity of suffering is irrelevant when considered in the scope of infinite creation, love, and judgment. The net-result by which both these parties will-be/will-have-been judged by is the net-result of their actions; the corpses of those they murdered, who committed no trespass, and could not defend themselves. 

If you really want to remove Mengele from this debate, I can abide that. If he doesn't belong in this discussion, it is because his atrocities don't even approach the level of those being committed today. 

It's believed that Mengele, himself, killed approximately 2,800 children. God rest their souls. 

We do that, just in the US, every day. 

In a single, average, year, we murder >1.2m children through the state-sanctioned procedure of "abortion". Compare that to the 1.1m suspected as the sum-total of the killings at Auschwitz throughout its years of operation. 

Perhaps its time that we stop looking back to the Nazis in derision, considering them as the benchmark of monstrosity, and start looking inward at the real monsters that we are.


----------



## painterswife

Okay folks. Would you be happy if not one bit of aborted tissue was used for research? Is that what you are complaining about?

Or is it the abortions themselves and you are using tissue donation as way to get to where you want. No abortion.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

painterswife said:


> Okay folks. Would you be happy if not one bit of aborted tissue was used for research? Is that what you are complaining about?
> 
> Or is it the abortions themselves and you are using tissue donation as way to get to where you want. No abortion.





painterswife said:


> No abortion.


^^^^^This.

Thank you.

That is all.


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ^^^^^This.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> That is all.


Then argue that and stop using tissue donation as a strawman.


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ^^^^^This.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> That is all.


Too bad it's legal and has been for over 40 years. Why don't you hire a lawyer and make yet another run at Roe v. Wade that will do nothing except make money for the all the lawyers involved? 

Anything other than attempting to change the law is just whining on the internet, right?


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Then argue that and stop using tissue donation as a strawman.



Post of the decade.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

So, here is where we are, Bearfoot, distilled for clarity:



Bearfootfarm said:


> Society has weighed in.
> That's why abortions are legal





GunMonkeyIntl said:


> My counter-point, distilled down to its basic argument, was that what Dr. Mengele did was "acceptable", as deemed legal by society in his place and time.





Bearfootfarm said:


> What he did was never "deemed legal"
> 
> He committed war crimes
> 
> Your entire premise is flawed, and WWII history has no bearing on here and now


Quoting Txsteader because his response was better than anything I could have written, particularly his choice of the word "obtuse".


Txsteader said:


> You're being obtuse again.
> 
> What he did was classed as war crimes after the fact. When he was in the process of his 'experiments', he obviously had the blessings of Hitler and the Nazi party. Remember, the Nazis were all about race superiority. He received a grant and built a laboratory next to the crematorium. What the heck, they were going to be exterminated anyway.


Mengele's plans, actions, and reported results went all the way to the desk of his president-equivalent. His government thought his work so valuable that they committed his people's treasure to its advancement (ie. tax dollars). 

In his time and place, under the protective umbrella of the world's noted super-power of the time, Mengele's work was not only acceptable, but seen as necessary for the well-being of the state. It was not until after his society lost a high-stakes war that his actions were seen as anything other than legal, acceptable, and worthy of praise. 

His work was legal, and, by the implicit point you made earlier, legality is the benchmark of acceptability. 

For the sake of this debate, please corroborate or correct your earlier point.

This is not a trap. I'd genuinely like to know how you reconcile this.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

painterswife said:


> Then argue that and stop using tissue donation as a strawman.


You keep doing that to me, Mrs. Painter.
I never once said that the issue was the tissue donation. My argument has been, all along, that abortion is murder. I could care less what you do with the flesh that is left behind in the wake of the murder. It's just flesh at that point. Arguing against me using a point I never made is the definition of "strawman argument", yet you use that very strawman to accuse me of building them.

But, since you don't seem to get the definition of what the thing is, I'll help.
Take a moment to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Then take a moment to review my posts in this thread (you can do that easily by clicking on the blue letters up and to the left of this post that say "GunMonkeyINTL".

Then re-read your post that I quoted in this post.

I'll wait.


----------



## Oxankle

"Lame arguments just take away your credibility, and yours isn't even original"

Bearfoot??? Where did you ever learn logic? First, originality is not required to rail against the killing of children. 

Second; what Mengele did WAS considered legal in his society and in his time; had the Nazis won it might still be considered legal. It was OUR society that decided it was not legal and hanged some of the perpetrators (but not Mengele). 

The difference between Megele's society and ours of that time is exactly the same as the difference between ours of that time and ours of today. We have fallen to Mengele's level. 



Morality demands self control and respect for life. To assume that one is all powerful and entitled to whatever one wishes is destructive of society and self. Killing children will never be moral, though it may be "legal".


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You keep doing that to me, Mrs. Painter.
> I never once said that the issue was the tissue donation. My argument has been, all along, that abortion is murder. I could care less what you do with the flesh that is left behind in the wake of the murder. It's just flesh at that point. Arguing against me using a point I never made is the definition of "strawman argument", yet you use that very strawman to accuse me of building them.
> 
> But, since you don't seem to get the definition of what the thing is, I'll help.
> Take a moment to read this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
> 
> Then take a moment to review my posts in this thread (you can do that easily by clicking on the blue letters up and to the left of this post that say "GunMonkeyINTL".
> 
> Then re-read your post that I quoted in this post.
> 
> I'll wait.


And you can wait until Roe v. Wade is overturned. 

I'm not waiting tho, way too much to do.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> What happens to the abortion rate if an agency that provides low cost birth control is defunded?
> 
> I've asked other "Ok with abortion on my terms" posters but they have failed to reply.
> 
> Can you tell us based on your years of hospital experience what will happen?


So, here is your response. You're welcome in advance.


I'm good with low-cost, no, heck, FREE birth-control. Nothing post-conception, but if you want to provide free, spermicide-coated condoms on every street corner, you can have as many of my tax dollars as that requires. 

You can, on my dime, put a box of 12 in every locker, in every school across America, from grades K on up, and replenish them any time there is found to be 11 or less in the box.

You can put a line item on my pay stub that says "Free Condoms", and you will get no complaint from me. Do it today. Then close the "abortion" clinics tomorrow. All of them.


----------



## FutureFarm

Irish Pixie said:


> What happens to the abortion rate if an agency that provides low cost birth control is defunded?
> 
> 
> 
> I've asked other "Ok with abortion on my terms" posters but they have failed to reply.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell us based on your years of hospital experience what will happen?





In America we have a somewhat capitalist economy. Another business, or "non-profit", will open up and take over the services PP used to provide. Hopefully the new one won't kill babies like its predecessor. 
The abortion rate might drop as it becomes more difficult to find someone willing to commit state approved murder. The abortion rate might stay the same, but women receiving abortions might die due to decreased quality of abortion procedures. Either option I'm fine with. If you're going to take a life, yours ought to hang in the balance.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> And you can wait until Roe v. Wade is overturned.
> 
> I'm not waiting tho, way too much to do.


Do you just randomly hit the 'Quote' button, and then type words following it?
The post you quoted was about Mrs. Painter's ironic use of the word "strawman".

I never once argued that the real issue was the sale of the tissue resultant from these murders, yet, Mrs. Painter used the citation that I did as grounds for an accusation that I was using strawmen arguments. Does that irony escape you?

I'm beginning to see a trend in this debate where one side provides direct answers to questions posed by the other side (reference my last post to see what that looks like), while the other side dodges and takes hard turns to avoid answering the questions asked by the other side.

So, since I answered one of your questions directly and plainly, and you keep citing Roe v. Wade and the legality it granted as the justification for your position, I'll extend the question that I asked to Bearfoot, but he has, thus far, refused to answer:

If the murder of children is acceptable because it is termed "abortion" and deemed legal by his society, and the actions of Dr. Mengele were deemed legal by his society, does that mean that his actions were acceptable?


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So, here is your response. You're welcome in advance.
> 
> I'm good with low-cost, no, heck, FREE birth-control. Nothing post-conception, but if you want to provide free, spermicide-coated condoms on every street corner, you can have as many of my tax dollars as that requires.
> 
> You can, on my dime, put a box of 12 in every locker, in every school across America, from grades K on up, and replenish them any time there is found to be 11 or less in the box.
> 
> You can put a line item on my pay stub that says "Free Condoms", and you will get no complaint from me. Do it today. Then close the "abortion" clinics tomorrow. All of them.


You didn't answer the question: What happens to the abortion rate if an agency that provides low cost birth control is defunded?


----------



## Jolly

Nevada said:


> Do conservatives have a plan to provide similar services offered by Planned Parenthood if it is successfully defunded? I've never been involved in abortion services with them, but I know that my girlfriend got affordable gyno services there.


It's a good question.

Some of the federal money received is in the form of Medicaid reimbursement. If the same monies were channeled to Public Health or to private contractors, some level of service could be provided.


----------



## Irish Pixie

FutureFarm said:


> In America we have a somewhat capitalist economy. Another business, or "non-profit", will open up and take over the services PP used to provide. Hopefully the new one won't kill babies like its predecessor.
> The abortion rate might drop as it becomes more difficult to find someone willing to commit state approved murder. The abortion rate might stay the same, but women receiving abortions might die due to decreased quality of abortion procedures. Either option I'm fine with. If you're going to take a life, yours ought to hang in the balance.


And pigs might fly too, right? 

Your entire scenario depends on if PP were defunded AND Roe v. Wade were overturned. Seeing how it's been 40+ years for Roe v. Wade we can assume it won't happen soon. 

So, based on that what would happen if PP were defunded and people had no where to go for low cost birth control? C'mon, admit it. You can do it. I know you can.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> It's a good question.
> 
> Some of the federal money received is in the form of Medicaid reimbursement. If the same monies were channeled to Public Health or to private contractors, some level of service could be provided.


C'mon Jolly, answer the question I posed to you. What would immediately happen to the abortion rate if PP were defunded?


----------



## Jolly

Patchouli said:


> Surely you aren't saying charges never vary from hospital to hospital? Because that would be untrue and easily disproved. The costs varied from clinic to clinic that was affiliated with PP. Perfectly normal.


Read again.

I never said charges did not vary from hospital to hospital. But they do not vary within the same hospital for the same procedure.

Secondly, charges and assignments are two different things. A hospital may charge what it wishes, but assignements such as Medicare and Medicaid payments are regional. If a non-teaching hospital in New Orleans and a non-teaching hospital in Jackson do the same procedure on a Medicare patient, they will receive the same monies.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> You didn't answer the question: What happens to the abortion rate if an agency that provides low cost birth control is defunded?


If an agency that provides low-cost birthcontrol is defunded, then the rate of abortions would most likely go up.

That said, my beef with funding to PP is not the birth control that they provide, but, rather the murders they commit. Hence my response that I am willing to provide FREE birth control on my tax dollars, as long as we close PP altogether. 

Now, care to answer my question?


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> *If an agency that provides low-cost birthcontrol is defunded, then the rate of abortions would most likely go up.*
> 
> That said, my beef with funding to PP is not the birth control that they provide, but, rather the murders they commit. Hence my response that I am willing to provide FREE birth control on my tax dollars, as long as we close PP altogether.
> 
> Now, care to answer my question?


Thank you! You are the first conservative to have stones to actually admit it. Bravo. 

In regard to your "beef"... meh. When abortion is made illegal let me know, K? 

What question would that be? I'll decide if it's worth my time to answer.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Too bad it's legal and has been for over 40 years. Why don't you hire a lawyer and make yet another run at Roe v. Wade that will do nothing except make money for the all the lawyers involved?
> 
> Anything other than attempting to change the law is just whining on the internet, right?


In case you haven't noticed, the pro-life side has taken a huge chunk out of Roe v. Wade. So yes, electing the right people and hiring the right lawyers to write the new laws has helped.

But the job isn't finished.

As science increasingly ratchets the age of fetal survivability downwards, it won't be long before the twenty week mark will become the eighteen week mark, will become the sixteen week mark, etc.

At some point, to achieve abortion, your side of the argument will have to advocate for killing a baby which could, with medical intervention, survive outside of the womb.

The public - not even the hedonistic majority we have today - will not tolerate that, so it's game, set, match for the pro-choice folks.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> C'mon Jolly, answer the question I posed to you. What would immediately happen to the abortion rate if PP were defunded?


The abortion rate would go down.

This is a good thing.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> The abortion rate would go down.
> 
> This is a good thing.


'splain please? Just a hint, PP provides a lot of birth control.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> In case you haven't noticed, the pro-life side has taken a huge chunk out of Roe v. Wade. So yes, electing the right people and hiring the right lawyers to write the new laws has helped.
> 
> But the job isn't finished.
> 
> As science increasingly ratchets the age of fetal survivability downwards, it won't be long before the twenty week mark will become the eighteen week mark, will become the sixteen week mark, etc.
> 
> At some point, to achieve abortion, your side of the argument will have to advocate for killing a baby which could, with medical intervention, survive outside of the womb.
> 
> The public - not even the hedonistic majority we have today - will not tolerate that, so it's game, set, match for the pro-choice folks.


And yet abortion is still legal in all 50 states and has been for over 40 years.


----------



## Jolly

Something not discussed in this thread, but germaine to the discussion...

The tactics used by the film crew are very similar to what the media has done for years, i.e. _60 Minutes_ , but I haven't heard any hue and cry from the public for the media to stop using hidden cameras or to quit posing as something they are not, when in pursuit of a story.

Yet, in this thread, there's been much vitriol directed at the people who filmed these "luncheons".

If you can't stand the message, kill the messenger?

And if the technique is inappropriate, what do we tell others who do the same thing, and the actions are condoned?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> And yet abortion is still legal in all 50 states and has been for over 40 years.


Abortion is not legal after 20 weeks in many states. It was, immediately after R v.W

The tide is not running your way. :happy:


----------



## gibbsgirl

Gunmpnkeyitnl, I agree with a lot of what you said.

It is some of the reasons I base my personal feelings about abortion and what I feel is right for me on.

But, I also believe that God picks each mom and which kids she gets, and while I can share my reasons with others, I believe God knows what he's doing and if a mom makes a decision to abort o need to respect her right to do that. Maybe there's a reason that God doesn't need me to understand that in his plan, that baby was going to die. Kind of like when I don't understand why other people die horribly or tragically, but I don't have to pass terrible personal judgment against others.

I also don't think that I have to diminish the tradegy of playing the percent numbers to a large extent. Those deaths are tragic o believe. But, so are driving deaths and guns deaths, and I don't believe God has shown me that cars or guns need to be taken from people.

I think the comparisons to Nazis and other atrocities is appropriate. Not all people are evil, even the some Nazis and other genocidal regimes. But, they had some very evil people leading their accomplices and victims down horrible roads. And, because I think most people don't want things like holocausts to occur again, I think the way to prevent that is to bring attention to and examen closely situations where truly evil people will look to get their foot in the door, to take advantage and commit atrocities. Abortion laws and service areas, and many other things qualify to me under that logic.

Finally, I'm Christian and from your posts, which are good to read, well written, I think you are to. I don't pretend to know what God has put on your heart or shown you understand ing in. I focus on what his plan and timing is for me and mine. And, I will tell you. Perhaps you're right in your shotcalling on here about what the afterlife holds for people. But, I don't think I know which people have been judged and sentenced to an eternity outside of God's graces.

So, you can and should say how you feel. But, I will to, and to patchouli and any others who have felt that the you're going to burn comments were directed at them ..... I just wanted you to read that I and likely many others you may or may not always agree with, do not feel that it was kind or appropriate in anyway to think those words or jokes have any good reason to be said.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you! You are the first conservative to have stones to actually admit it. Bravo.
> 
> In regard to your "beef"... meh. When abortion is made illegal let me know, K?
> 
> What question would that be? I'll decide if it's worth my time to answer.





GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ...If the murder of children is acceptable because it is termed "abortion" and deemed legal by his society, and the actions of Dr. Mengele were deemed legal by his society, does that mean that his actions were acceptable?


Since you _once again _backed your side by pointing out that the murder of children is legal, terming it "abortion", I think my question is that much more relevant.

Since Bearfoot took the same position regarding legality-equals-acceptability, but he clearly doesn't have "the stones" to answer it, I hope you're big enough to step up to the plate.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Actually it was meant to show that they have been doing this for decades and have not broken any laws.
> 
> I have no problem with them using fetal tissue from abortions just as I have no problem with them using tissue from other people that have died. You may have a problem with the abortion itself but making it about using the tissue after the abortion is a strawman argument.


"...Using tissue from other people that have died." Yup. I have no problem there either. 
Funny you're comparing this fetus to "other PEOPLE that have died". Thought we were talking about a fetus, not a person b/c had not taken a "breath", WAS 'it' alive? Was it killed? Wonder why parts could just be ripped out & remains be left in the uterus...might wait for other parts, get 'em later?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Patchouli said:


> Trying to compare Josef Mengele's atrocities perpetrated on live subjects to research on dead human tissue may be the most absurd argument trotted out ever by a pro-lifer. That one pretty well takes the cake.


Where's your link/proof that the fetus is dead b/4 the harvest begins?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Woolieface said:


> Looks like a human baby to me...


"Just a blob of cells". "It's your body".
Its a parasite.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Abortion is not legal after 20 weeks in many states. It was, immediately after R v.W
> 
> The tide is not running your way. :happy:


And abortion is still legal in all 50 states...


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Since you _once again _backed your side by pointing out that the murder of children is legal, terming it "abortion", I think my question is that much more relevant.
> 
> Since Bearfoot took the same position regarding legality-equals-acceptability, but he clearly doesn't have "the stones" to answer it, I hope you're big enough to step up to the plate.


You invoked Godwin's law. You lost all credibility. Better luck next time.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

gibbsgirl said:


> So, you can and should say how you feel. But, I will to, and to patchouli and any others who have felt that the you're going to burn comments were directed at them ..... I just wanted you to read that I and likely many others you may or may not always agree with, do not feel that it was kind or appropriate in anyway to think those words or jokes have any good reason to be said.


Fair enough, and I don't disagree with you. In fact, I agree 100% that I do not know the results of anyone's judgment by Him. To that point, when Bearfoot pointed out the same, I provided my mea culpa and admitted forthright that I do not even know the results of Joseph Mengele's judgment. As much as he has been used here as a reference-point of evil, I concede that, for all I know, he may well have passed his judgment. It's not my concern or call to make.

The references to implied judgment were entirely analogic in nature. The point was not to imply that I thought any one particular person was going to face an unfavorable result in their judgment, rather to point out that supporting or defending these murders was as bad as performing the "crunching" itself, and would weigh just as heavily on one's soul at one's judgment. I realized that I didn't articulate that point as well as I thought I had, so I refrained from there out. 

But, rather than just let it go implied in my post, since I so clearly failed in articulating what I thought I had in the first place, I will come right out and apologize directly to anyone I led to believe that I knew the results of their judgment by Him.



Regarding your thoughts on instances of the acceptability of the murder of unborn children; that is a point on which we'll have to disagree.

There is no acceptable instance. 

Should a woman receive such injury that her unborn child is killed, then that is a tragedy to be mourned. Should a women seek help in killing her unborn child, regardless the circumstances of her pregnancy, that is murder, and her soul should be prayed for.

The victim of the murder, regardless should their killing be "justified" because they are malformed, the result of rape or incest, or just "inconvenient", lived their short life according to God's plan, and they will be cared for in eternity. The murderer, and the mother who paid the hitman, failed one of the many tests of free will that they will face in their lives, and the act will be reckoned in their judgment.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> 'splain please? Just a hint, PP provides a lot of birth control.


They do, and that birth control can be found in other places, many times for free...And especially so if you take away federal funds from PP and give it to other venues, such as Public Health.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> They do, and that birth control can be found in other places, many times for free...And especially so if you take away federal funds from PP and give it to other venues, such as Public Health.


Got it. At least gunmonkeyintl had the stones to admit the abortion rate would go up if one of the biggest providers of birth control in the country was defunded. 

I really didn't think you (and others) would anyway.


----------



## Jolly

> I think the comparisons to Nazis and other atrocities is appropriate. Not all people are evil, even the some Nazis and other genocidal regimes. But, they had some very evil people leading their accomplices and victims down horrible roads. And, because I think most people don't want things like holocausts to occur again, I think the way to prevent that is to bring attention to and examen closely situations where truly evil people will look to get their foot in the door, to take advantage and commit atrocities. Abortion laws and service areas, and many other things qualify to me under that logic.


What does true Evil look like?

The worst Evil is incremental and actually starts out as something perceived as good. Mussolini made the trains run on time. Hitler helped to overcome the massive inflation that wrecked the German economy. Mao helped to save a war-ravaged country from a truly corrupt Nationalistic government.

Evil will never appear as a red, fork-tailed, horned demon. Evil is much too subtle for that...


----------



## Tricky Grama

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So, let's grant you all of the figures you cited, for the sake of argument. What point does that really leave remaining?
> _(all emphasis below is mine, not the OP's, and no text was removed)._
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so, most. What about the other 11%? Is that the acceptable threshold for "breaking some eggs"? Is it OK to murder children, in a way that they have awareness of their suffering, as long as at least 88% of the murders are committed in a painless way?
> 
> Let's say an adult suffered from blindness, congenital analgesia, and had a bout of amnesia. Would it then be acceptable to kill that person? They can't see, they can't feel, and they don't know who they are. They have the organs of a human being, all the pieces and parts, but they couldn't be aware of what you were doing to them. Does their lack of awareness relegate them enough into "sub-human" status that their murder could be called "abortion", instead, and be legal under the law?
> 
> 
> 
> See, the thing here is, I would NOT be "hard-pressed" to tell the baby was human. I've seen ultrasounds at 12 weeks and earlier, and it is readily apparent to anyone not trying to hide their eyes in order to forgive _themselves _ of some horror allowed.
> 
> Look at it. Force yourself to look at it, with open eyes. It's not a tumor, it's not a liver, it's not a piglet, and it's not a preying mantis- this much is obvious at 12 weeks and even earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> So standing up against a heinous injustice that happens, according to your construct, _only 1.5%_ of the time is a "fuss" based on a "falsehood". You admit that it happens, but it is somehow still "false". How do you figure that? I'd like to see your math.
> 
> As long as no more than 1.6% of the murdered children are aware enough to try to resist their executioner, then it is acceptable? Who drew that line? Is there a chart?
> 
> There is an acceptable level, according to His truth. I'll give you a hint: it's <0.0000000%.
> 
> 
> You're damned right.
> Again, no pun intended. (well....)
> 
> And once we get post-20 week murders banned, we're having a party. We're gathering up all our printed materials, we're scratching out every "20", and writing in "19". You're invited to come help.
> 
> 
> 
> And, now, here we are back to Mengele.
> Your platitudes about his particular level of heinousness aside, his place in this conversation is the parallel between what he did, and what the children murderers of today do: namely the murder of defenseless innocents under the guise of state-sanction, and the advancement of society.
> 
> I've previously stated my belief that the relativity of suffering is irrelevant when considered in the scope of infinite creation, love, and judgment. The net-result by which both these parties will-be/will-have-been judged by is the net-result of their actions; the corpses of those they murdered, who committed no trespass, and could not defend themselves.
> 
> If you really want to remove Mengele from this debate, I can abide that. If he doesn't belong in this discussion, it is because his atrocities don't even approach the level of those being committed today.
> 
> It's believed that Mengele, himself, killed approximately 2,800 children. God rest their souls.
> 
> We do that, just in the US, every day.
> 
> In a single, average, year, we murder >1.2m children through the state-sanctioned procedure of "abortion". Compare that to the 1.1m suspected as the sum-total of the killings at Auschwitz throughout its years of operation.
> 
> Perhaps its time that we stop looking back to the Nazis in derision, considering them as the benchmark of monstrosity, and start looking inward at the real monsters that we are.


Post of the last 2 centuries award.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Got it. At least gunmonkeyintl had the stones to admit the abortion rate would go up if one of the biggest providers of birth control in the country was defunded.
> 
> I really didn't think you (and others) would anyway.


Please go back and read the quote I addressed.

As for the abortion rate going up...you think people are so stupid they can't shift gears and obtain their *free* birth control elsewhere? Do you really think people are that stupid?

Is that the reason liberals demand a nanny state, because they think others are too stupid to make their way through life?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Okay folks. Would you be happy if not one bit of aborted tissue was used for research? Is that what you are complaining about?
> 
> Or is it the abortions themselves and you are using tissue donation as way to get to where you want. No abortion.


I'd be happy if they used parts from spontaneous abortions.

I'd be sorta ok w/them obeying the law & NOT selling baby/fetus parts from elective abortions even if the SALE is just to break even.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Since you _once again _backed your side by pointing out that the murder of children is legal, terming it "abortion", I think my question is that much more relevant.
> 
> Since Bearfoot took the same position regarding legality-equals-acceptability, but he clearly doesn't have "the stones" to answer it, I hope you're big enough to step up to the plate.





Irish Pixie said:


> You invoked Godwin's law. You lost all credibility. Better luck next time.


Use what mechanism you like to avoid answering a question that is difficult, to be sure, but it is still, nonetheless, a valid question in this debate. So, for the sake of advancing the discussion, and to make it less unpalatable to you, I'll change the variable you cite as rendering the question irrelevant. 



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> *EDITED:*
> If the murder of children is acceptable because it is termed "abortion" and deemed legal by his society, and the actions of *Brother No. 3* were deemed legal by his society, does that mean that his actions were acceptable?


For point of reference, the "_Brothers No. X_" were Pol Pot's official, close-vest executioners. They perpetrated the killings of the Khmer Rouge under state-sanction, state-funding, and with the charge of doing the state's work - read: "legal" in their society.

Answer now?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> You're being obtuse again.
> 
> What he did was classed as war crimes after the fact. When he was in the process of his 'experiments', he obviously had the blessings of Hitler and the Nazi party. Remember, the Nazis were all about race superiority. He received a grant and built a laboratory next to the crematorium. What the heck, they were going to be exterminated anyway.


It makes no difference if Hitler and the party "approved"

What he did was never *legal* anywhere in the world.

It was classified as war *CRIMES* because that is what those actions were, before during and after the commission

Abortion is legal


----------



## gibbsgirl

Jolly,

I agree we have a nanny state. But believe there is ample blame for it on both sides of the aisle because it's really about the ruling class pushing ignorance and dependence on the at large population.

They know that ignorant, dependent constituents are the best way to ensure they are never unseated and merely have to share and infight with each other rather than everyone else. Therefore, they will fight as hard as possible to strip our rights and give us very little ability to self determine or oppose them on nearly all fronts.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

light rain said:


> Bearfootfarm, history always has bearing on the here and now. I even believe there is even a famous quote on this subject. Something about doom and repetition...


Nothing Mengle did has any relation to *legal* acts today

It's only being mentioned because they ran out of rational arguments long ago

It's the same reason why Woolie is posting pictures and declaring "it's human" when no one has ever disputed that.

Go for shock value and emotion when logic and rationality fail


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Use what mechanism you like to avoid answering a question that is difficult, to be sure, but it is still, nonetheless, a valid question in this debate. So, for the sake of advancing the discussion, and to make it less unpalatable to you, I'll change the variable you cite as rendering the question irrelevant.
> 
> For point of reference, the "_Brothers No. X_" were Pol Pot's official, close-vest executioners. They perpetrated the killings of the Khmer Rouge under state-sanction, state-funding, and with the charge of doing the state's work - read: "legal" in their society.
> 
> Answer now?


You miss the point completely. You compared abortion to Josef Mengele's human experiments, that in itself is ridiculous. There is no discussion after doing so, at least for me.


----------



## kasilofhome

Obama care is law of the land.... birth control and health care should make it so ppl can be dissolved.


Redundancy


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jolly said:


> In case you haven't noticed, the pro-life side has taken a huge chunk out of Roe v. Wade. So yes, electing the right people and hiring the right lawyers to write the new laws has helped.
> 
> But the job isn't finished.
> 
> As science increasingly ratchets the age of fetal survivability downwards, it won't be long before the twenty week mark will become the eighteen week mark, will become the sixteen week mark, etc.
> 
> At some point, to achieve abortion, your side of the argument will have to advocate for killing a baby which could, with medical intervention, survive outside of the womb.
> 
> The public - not even the hedonistic majority we have today - will not tolerate that, so it's game, set, match for the pro-choice folks.


They pretty much already DO advocate for killing babies that can survive outside the womb. 
8 states+ D.C. Have no gestational age restrictions.
3 states restrict at 28 wks.
(Hard to grasp this, horrific.)
22 states allow abortion on demand up to 24-26 wks.

I had asked this of a poster who said it was illegal in "most states". Here's the #s


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Please go back and read the quote I addressed.
> 
> As for the abortion rate going up...you think people are so stupid they can't shift gears and obtain their *free* birth control elsewhere? Do you really think people are that stupid?
> 
> Is that the reason liberals demand a nanny state, because they think others are too stupid to make their way through life?


Nope, not stupid but most won't be inconvenienced. 

Now who is getting all miffed? All the buzzwords: liberals, nanny state, and people that are too stupid to care for themselves. You hit a bunch! Maybe a record...


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> You miss the point completely. You compared abortion to Josef Mengele's human experiments, that in itself is ridiculous. There is no discussion after doing so, at least for me.


Ok... if the are not experimenting.... are the going to come out with a cook book?


----------



## Irish Pixie

OK... I love bacon and coffee!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> And abortion is still legal in all 50 states...


Not after 6 wks in ND.
Makin' progress.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ^^^^^This.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> That is all.


You may as well accept the reality that it's not going to happen



> *You're damned* right.
> Again, no pun intended. (well....)


You really should stop telling those you disagree with that they are going to Hell, even though you're not honest enough to just come right out and say it.

It's a poor example of "Christian" behavior


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Second; *what Mengele did WAS considered legal* in his society and in his time; had the Nazis won it might still be considered legal. It was OUR society that decided it was not legal and hanged some of the perpetrators (but not Mengele).


You can parrot that lie but it's still not true.
You're just repeating what others have posted


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Not after 6 wks in ND.
> Makin' progress.


And abortion is *still legal* in all 50 states and has been for over 40 years.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, not stupid but most won't be inconvenienced.
> 
> Now who is getting all miffed? All the buzzwords: liberals, nanny state, and people that are too stupid to care for themselves. You hit a bunch! Maybe a record...


I don't believe our constitution laws were ever intended to ensure people had lives of convenience.

We definitely have mutated towards that though with all the freebies etc that people expect will be handled and provided to them.


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> You may as wel accept the reality that it's not going to happen
> 
> 
> You really should stop telling those you disagree with that they are going to Hell, even though you're not honest enough to just come right out and say it.
> 
> It's a poor example of "Christian" behavior


Well, since you have the right and do use the right to tell folk what the should do...and should not do


You should not support killing of human live it is a poor example of humanity


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't believe our constitution laws were ever intended to ensure people had lives of convenience.
> 
> We definitely have mutated towards that though with all the freebies etc that people expect will be handled and provided to them.


And yet if you cut off the convenience and "freebies" the abortion rate will go up? Is that what you want?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Something not discussed in this thread, but germaine to the discussion...
> 
> The tactics used by the film crew are very similar to what the media has done for years, i.e. _60 Minutes_ , but I haven't heard any hue and cry from the public for the media to stop using hidden cameras or to quit posing as something they are not, when in pursuit of a story.
> 
> Yet, in this thread, there's been much vitriol directed at the people who filmed these "luncheons".
> 
> If you can't stand the message, kill the messenger?
> 
> And if the technique is inappropriate, what do we tell others who do the same thing, and the actions are condoned?


They are all liars, but that's another diversion from the real topic, from the one who said "Stick to one topic, Bud"


----------



## Tricky Grama

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> If an agency that provides low-cost birthcontrol is defunded, then the rate of abortions would most likely go up.
> 
> You certainly don't know this.
> Funny how the pro lifers have to ans every ? but other side doesn't seem to. Funny how a "I suppose" or "most likely" is accepted as gospel in this case...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Since you _once again _backed your side by pointing out that the murder of children is legal, terming it "abortion", I think my question is that much more relevant.
> 
> Since Bearfoot took the same position regarding legality-equals-acceptability, but he clearly doesn't have "the stones" to answer it, I hope you're big enough to step up to the plate.


Rational answers are wasted on irrational people.

As long as you keep pretending Mengele's acts were legal, it's a waste of effort to reply

I told you that once before, and I answered the question as soon as it was asked, but you act as if I didn't, proving you have no real interest in an honest dialogue


----------



## Tricky Grama

FutureFarm said:


> In America we have a somewhat capitalist economy. Another business, or "non-profit", will open up and take over the services PP used to provide. Hopefully the new one won't kill babies like its predecessor.
> The abortion rate might drop as it becomes more difficult to find someone willing to commit state approved murder. The abortion rate might stay the same, but women receiving abortions might die due to decreased quality of abortion procedures. Either option I'm fine with. If you're going to take a life, yours ought to hang in the balance.


And perhaps the abortion providers who are left-not just PP provides, you know-will take women's health into account and have clinics that comply w/standards.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Rational answers are wasted on irrational people.
> 
> As long as you keep pretending Mengele's acts were legal, it's a waste of effort to reply
> 
> I told you that once before


Mengele's actions were legal, in Germany, in 1944. We happened to consider them illegal, and we won the war, so we got to decide what they were called for the writ of history. Had we not won, Patton would have been prosecuted as a war criminal, while Mengele would have been given a bigger lab and access to more of the world's children.

You do realize that there are countries on this earth were abortion is not legal today, right? It does not carry some sort of universal legality because our supreme court said so. There are places on this earth where abortionists would be prosecuted as murders, should their courts gain access to them. 

So yes, what Mengele, and the Brothers No. X did was legal. Fortunately, the side of good won out, and their legacy was painted as we saw fit. 

Your assumption that our definitions of what is legal assumes that we, the United States, will always be the world's super power, and that we have some universal claim to what is right and wrong.

You're avoiding the question, not because it's not relevant, but because you don't like the answer you know you'll find there.


----------



## Tricky Grama

gibbsgirl said:


> Jolly,
> 
> I agree we have a nanny state. But believe there is ample blame for it on both sides of the aisle because it's really about the ruling class pushing ignorance and dependence on the at large population.
> 
> They know that ignorant, dependent constituents are the best way to ensure they are never unseated and merely have to share and infight with each other rather than everyone else. Therefore, they will fight as hard as possible to strip our rights and give us very little ability to self determine or oppose them on nearly all fronts.


I. e., "Greuber's law".


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *The point was not to imply that I thought any one particular person was going to face an unfavorable result in their judgment,* rather to point out that supporting or defending these murders was as bad as performing the "crunching" itself, and would weigh just as heavily on one's soul at one's judgment. I realized that I didn't articulate that point as well as I thought I had, *so I refrained from there out*.


It was bad enough that you said it multiple times, but now you're compounding it with your denial

You're rapidly losing all credibility


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Bearfootfarm said:


> You really should stop telling those you disagree with that they are going to Hell, even though you're not honest enough to just come right out and say it.
> 
> It's a poor example of "Christian" behavior


Three things:

1 - I pointed out that that was not exactly what I meant.

2 - I apologized, openly, to anyone I may have offended with my lack of articulation.

3 - What was #3 again? Oh, I remember, I never claimed to be a Christian.

Find the reference where I did, or admit that you're just building strawmen yourself.

I know, rhetorical statement, I don't expect someone of your bent to ever admit where they were wrong.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> It makes no difference if Hitler and the party "approved"
> 
> What he did was never *legal* anywhere in the world.
> 
> It was classified as war *CRIMES* because that is what those actions were, before during and after the commission
> 
> Abortion is legal


Obtuse.

They were legal in *GERMANY*. If they weren't then how did he obtain a grant and build a laboratory adjacent to the crematorium???? Do you honestly don't think that Goering or Himmler or Hitler weren't aware of it????? If it were illegal, wouldn't he have been arrested? Killing Jews was obviously legal in Germany. Did that make it ethical?

Yes, abortion is legal. Doesn't mean it's right. Legal doesn't automatically make something ethical.


----------



## Tricky Grama

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't believe our constitution laws were ever intended to ensure people had lives of convenience.
> 
> We definitely have mutated towards that though with all the freebies etc that people expect will be handled and provided to them.


Seems I remember the progressives whining about PPs being closed due to safety issues & now moms would be inconvenienced. Seems they didn't want to use nearby clinics anyway?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Well, since your have the right and do use the right to tell folk what the should do...and should not do
> 
> 
> You should not support killing of human live it is a poor example of humanity


Show me where I ever said I "support" it.

I said it was *legal*, and that no one can force their beliefs on anyone else.

I haven't told anyone what they should do other than stop trying to force their rules on others


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was bad enough that you said it multiple times, but now you're compounding it with your denial
> 
> You're rapidly losing all credibility


Go back to where you first called me on it, I admitted you were right, and took the further step to try to explain what I meant by it. If I did it again, it was a rhetorical slip, but I still apologized to anyone that I may have offended by it, without excuse other than to explain what I really meant.

That said, I don't expect, for a moment, to have any credibility to you or your ilk. You come into any issue, predecided what to think, and refuse to see any valid input that anyone opposed to that view might have. 

If you look at the records of my post, I am able to apologize where I think that I spoke wrongly, and able to provide answers to questions that others may use to advance their point, when I think that the answer is correct, regardless its implications to my side of the argument.

I've been an active participant in this debate. Conceded where concession was due, and considered the thoughts that others brought to the table. You, on the other hand, have stuck your fingers in your ears, shook your head, and repeated "nah-nah-nah not legal not legal nah-nah-nah".

What's my credibility to you supposed to be worth?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> And yet if you cut off the convenience and "freebies" the abortion rate will go up? Is that what you want?


I want state and local govts to be free to legislate what services they will allow and fund regarding all forms of healthcare with their own money and with the consent of their constituents without the intervention of the federal govt.

As far as abortion goes that may make it go up or down depending on the place.

I guess you think I hadn't considered it might go up? I have.

And, I still believe abortion is usually not right. And, I still believe I gave to allow for others to base their choices on their own beliefs and not mine.


----------



## Jolly

> What he did was never legal anywhere in the world.


Not true.

What he did was legal in Germany and its possessions at the time.

Period.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

I'm done here.

Thank you to some of you (and not just to those on my side, whatever my "side" was, exactly), for the lively and important debate. At some point, though, there is more sense in trying to design the perfect football bat.

My dog and I are off to the woods to discuss quantum physics.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> They are all liars, but that's another diversion from the real topic, from the one who said "Stick to one topic, Bud"


Oh, I think it's an integral part of the topic.

Haven't you (and many others) in just this thread decried the method by which the PP admissions were obtained? Haven't you or others written the tapes are biased? Circumspect? Taken out of context? And everything else you could think of to produce a smokescreen large enough to obscure the fact that PP is trafficking - albeit not known how much profit is involved - in the organs of dead babies?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Obtuse.
> 
> *They were legal *in GERMANY. If they weren't then how did he obtain a grant and build a laboratory adjacent to the crematorium???? Do you honestly don't think that Goering or Himmler or Hitler weren't aware of it?????
> 
> *Yes, abortion is legal*. Doesn't mean it's right. Legal doesn't automatically make something ethical.


No, it was never legal anywhere at all (Hence the term "war crimes")

They kept it hidden from most of the world

Just because Hitler approved doesn't mean there were *laws* that allowed it. 

You're really grasping at straws here, and failing miserably


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Not true.
> 
> What he did was legal in Germany and its possessions at the time.
> 
> Period.


Show us those statutes


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show us those statutes


Oh, now that's a heckuva debating point!

Are you trying to say that what Mengele did was illegal, even when freezing Jews to death under direction of the German military and their political leaders?

Excuse me, but...

*Bwhahahahahahahaha!*

Get real. The only reason the Nazis were prosecuted for war crimes, is because the Allies decided to do so.

Stalin starved to death more people in the Ukraine (7,000,000) in 1932-1933 than Hitler was able to kill in concentration camps. Remind me again, what court was Stalin tried in, that convicted him of any illegal deaths?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Rational answers are wasted on irrational people.
> 
> As long as you keep pretending Mengele's acts were legal, it's a waste of effort to reply
> 
> I told you that once before, and I answered the question as soon as it was asked, but you act as if I didn't, proving you have no real interest in an honest dialogue


I disagree that mengelw broke German law. But, for the sake of argument, let's say he did outright break German law.

He would have been unable to do so openly as he did without an environment already in place that allowed him access to humans who could be tortured, murder, and experimented on without them already being labeled legally by their govt as having less rights than other human beings.

Therefore, we can learn a lesson from that by understanding that it is a slippery slope and we really should be vigilant in ensuring that we don't create laws that allow for others to run afoul of the law by taking advantage of using the remains of others for the advancement of science. 

It's not always about giving someone's death greater meaning to all the people who want access to their remains. Particularly when the people who want the remains work so closely and privately with the people who offering to requisition those remains from deaths that were elective rather than unpreventable.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Oh, I think it's an integral part of the topic.
> 
> Haven't you (and many others) in just this thread decried the method by which the PP admissions were obtained? Haven't you or others written the tapes are biased? Circumspect? Taken out of context? And everything else you could think of to produce a smokescreen large enough to obscure the fact that PP is trafficking - albeit not known how much profit is involved - in the organs of dead babies?


Yes to all those things about THESE videos, but turning to discussion to the media is as much a diversion as the 70 year old WWII drivel.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Go back to where you first called me on it, I admitted you were right, and took the further step to try to explain what I meant by it. If I did it again, it was *a rhetorical slip*, but I still apologized to anyone that I may have offended by it, without excuse other than to explain *what I really meant*.


It was not a "rhetorical slip"

It was carefully worded to sound "cute", and it was quite obvious what you really meant, since you did it at least 3 times.



> I won't have to see him where I'm going.
> Tell him I said "hi".





> He will reveal it to you someday where I have failed.
> 
> He will. You'll see. And it's gonna hurt like hell.
> (no pun intended. (Well, kinda. (Doesn't matter anyway)))





> Quote:
> You're damned right.
> Again, no pun intended. (well....)





> The murderer, and the mother who paid the hitman, failed one of the many tests of free will that they will face in their lives, and the act will be reckoned in their judgment.



The continued denial just makes it worse



> Oh, I remember, I never claimed to be a Christian.
> 
> Find* the reference where I did*, or admit that you're just building strawmen yourself.


Your posts are full of references to what you claimed to believe, but they may not be true at all, based on actions


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Therefore, we can learn a lesson from that by understanding that it is a slippery slope and we really should be vigilant in ensuring that we don't create laws that allow for others to run afoul of the law by taking advantage of using the remains of others for the advancement of science.


Lame rhetoric won't make Mengele's actions relevant to this topic
You sound like a politician, talking a lot, but saying nothing of substance


----------



## gibbsgirl

I wonder how the dead and alive allies vets and their families from. Ww2 and those that were liberated by the allied victory would feel about all these references to Nazis not breaking laws under the Reich's rule? And, recognition of those atrocities being stopped and hopefully blocked from recurring again somewhere else in the world drivel?

Seems to me that line of thinking is headed toward the destination of questioning exactly why we were even involved in those theaters of war at all....just saying....


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lame rhetoric won't make Mengele's actions relevant to this topic
> You sound like a politician, talking a lot, but saying nothing of substance


Post of the decade!!!


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Lame rhetoric won't make Mengele's actions relevant to this topic
> You sound like a politician, talking a lot, but saying nothing of substance


Opinions vary. As do levels of skills for intellectual comprehensive thought.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Oh, now that's a heckuva debating point!
> 
> Are you trying to say that what Mengele did was illegal, even when freezing Jews to death under direction of the German military and their political leaders?
> 
> Excuse me, but...
> 
> *Bwhahahahahahahaha!*
> 
> Get real. The only reason the Nazis were prosecuted for war crimes, is because the Allies decided to do so.
> 
> Stalin starved to death more people in the Ukraine (7,000,000) in 1932-1933 than Hitler was able to kill in concentration camps. Remind me again, what court was Stalin tried in, that convicted him of any illegal deaths?


More WWII drivel about illegal acts, whether they were punished or not.
"Stick to one topic bud" is what I was told, and WWII isn't the topic here


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> Opinions vary. As do levels of skills for intellectual comprehensive thought.


Why *****foot around. Come right out and insult him instead of playing these games.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Opinions vary. As do levels of skills for intellectual comprehensive thought.


More empty rhetoric, crafted to imply you are somehow superior.

Your word games are too transparent


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing Mengle did has any relation to *legal* acts today
> 
> It's only being mentioned because they ran out of rational arguments long ago
> 
> It's the same reason why Woolie is posting pictures and declaring "it's human" when no one has ever disputed that.
> 
> Go for shock value and emotion when logic and rationality fail


You answer very few questions in a direct fashion. The argument is valid. Person 1 is doing something that is legal in their current society. Person 2 is doing something that is considered legal in their current society.

In Person 1's society, a substantial change in circumstances occurred and then that practice became illegal and a standard for illegal actions of that sort.

In Person 2's current society there are arguments about the legality of the action that is currently legal.

In both societies, what is legal now may be illegal at a later date due to societal introspect.

The question that presents itself is this: [no attempt to steal any thunder - just rephrasing it to how I see the question]

Can a person who does something that is currently deemed "good" and "legal" actually be someone who is doing unspeakable evil?

Please answer for Person 1 and Person 2.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> I wonder how the dead and alive allies vets and their families from. Ww2 and those that were liberated by the allied victory would feel about all these references to* Nazis not breaking laws* under the Reich's rule? And, recognition of those atrocities being stopped and hopefully blocked from recurring again somewhere else in the world drivel?
> 
> Seems to me that line of thinking is headed toward the destination of questioning exactly why we were even involved in those theaters of war at all....just saying....


It's you and all your buddies saying they were NOT breaking any laws.

The "drivel" is from continuously trying to inject it into an abortion topic



> I disagree that mengelw broke German law.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You answer very few questions in a direct fashion. The argument is valid. Person 1 is doing something that is legal in their current society. Person 2 is doing something that is considered legal in their current society.


Your assumption about whichever of those "persons" is Mengele is false
Is that direct enough for you?



> Can a person who does something that is currently deemed "good" and "legal" actually be someone who is doing unspeakable evil?


Your entire premise is as false as it was when several others presented it, using various names, both real and fabricated

Your "Person 1 and Person 2" has already been tried

Don't y'all read these posts?


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Why *****foot around. Come right out and insult him instead of playing these games.


I seem to recall complaints about attacking the post not the poster being a rule. Now I'm being accused of *****footing?! Too funny.

My words are mine, as your words are yours, same as everybody else. Having a conversation where everyone has to spare each other of hurt feelings or criticisms or disagreements isn't a very interesting or fruitful way to converse.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your assumption about whichever of those "persons" is Mengele is false
> Is that direct enough for you?
> 
> 
> Your entire premise is as false as it was when several others presented it, using various names, both real and fabricated
> 
> Your "Person 1 and Person 2" has already been tried
> 
> Don't y'all read these posts?


There is absolutely no reason to continue this - 40 some pages of you playing the victim and trying to get people to think just because something is legal it is therefore good. I asked you a direct "yes" or "no" question, but as ever, you dissect the question, add stuff that was never added, twist the question so that it suits you and then still do not provide a direct answer but ask another question that has no meaning to what I asked.

While what I said before is ongoing, I wish you well but I see what you are doing here... 

Be well.


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> More WWII drivel about illegal acts, whether they were punished or not.
> "Stick to one topic bud" is what I was told, and WWII isn't the topic here


I'm sorry if you cannot, or purposefully will not see the connection.

What PP is doing, is state sanctioned killing.

What Mengele did, was state sanctioned killing.

How many times have you fallen back on the "legal' word in this thread? In both examples, the state deemed these acts legal at the time, even though both involved the purposeful taking of human life.

It is your contention, that what is legal, is right.

It is my contention that what is right, is not always necessarily legal.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> I seem to recall complaints about attacking the post not the poster being a rule. Now I'm being accused of *****footing?! Too funny.
> 
> My words are mine, as your words are yours, same as everybody else. Having a conversation where everyone has to spare each other of hurt feelings or criticisms or disagreements isn't a very interesting or fruitful way to converse.


I was attacking the post. It was an insult to the posters comprehension skills.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> I was attacking the post. It was an insult to the posters comprehension skills.


People attack each other by your standard all the time. I guess some people are able to let it bother them less.

I see it on here being given and received by a variety of people, although by my estimation, some more than others.

Oh well.


----------



## 7thswan

Don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet,,,there is aprox. 12 of these videos to come out.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> And yet if you cut off the convenience and "freebies" the abortion rate will go up? Is that what you want?


I know what I want.
I want it to be as hard as it can possibly be, preferably impossible for a mother to kill her child. If they go bak to back alley abortions I'm good with that. If these women who kill their children die while doing it I'm fine with that too.


----------



## kasilofhome

gibbsgirl said:


> Opinions vary. As do levels of skills for intellectual comprehensive thought.


Well I think that is a factual statement
We are not clones and comprehensive test were and still are not required testing to part take on homesteading
Writing skills are often pointed out.... ps I apologize chances are my personal skills will not improve and many have point out what I know is true...Writing is not high on my skill set.

Chances are we vary in height too.... big deal.
.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> There is absolutely no reason to continue this - 40 some pages of you playing the victim and trying to get people to think just because something is legal it is therefore good. I asked you a direct "yes" or "no" question, but as ever, you dissect the question, add stuff that was never added, twist the question so that it suits you and then still do not provide a direct answer but ask another question that has no meaning to what I asked.
> 
> While what I said before is ongoing, I wish you well but I see what you are doing here...
> 
> Be well.


The question you asked has been repeated countless times on this thread.
The answers haven't changed



> There is absolutely no reason to continue this


I'm pretty sure you've said that several times also

See you soon!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> I'm sorry if you cannot, or purposefully will not see the connection.
> 
> What PP is doing, is state sanctioned killing.
> 
> What Mengele did, was state sanctioned killing.
> 
> How many times have you fallen back on the "legal' word in this thread? In both examples, the state deemed these acts legal at the time, even though both involved the purposeful taking of human life.
> 
> *It is your contention, that what is legal, is right.*
> 
> It is my contention that what is right, is not always necessarily legal.


There is no valid connection

Nothing Mengele did was legal.

I also never said if abortion was "right or wrong"

I *said* it's LEGAL, and you can't force your choices on anyone else

See? Short and sweet, without any hype


----------



## Bearfootfarm

7thswan said:


> Don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet,,,there is aprox. 12 of these videos to come out.


And each will be as credible as the first


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no valid connection
> 
> Nothing Mengele did was legal.
> 
> I also never said if abortion was "right or wrong"
> 
> I *said* it's LEGAL, and you can't force your choices on anyone else
> 
> See? Short and sweet, without any hype


Nothing Mengele did was legal? Can you say that with a straight face? Of course what he did was legal.

As you have repeatedly pointed out to me and everybody else, abortion (killing human life) is legal in the U.S.

What Mengele did (killing human life) was legal in Germany at the time. If you are going to turn around and deny that or demand we cite German law, then your argument has lost all credibility and become nothing more than joke.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I know what I want.
> I want it to be as hard as it can possibly be, preferably impossible for a mother to kill her child. If they go bak to back alley abortions I'm good with that. *If these women who kill their children die while doing it I'm fine with that too*.


Let me guess, you're christian, right? And with that statement now everyone knows just the type of person you are. Thank you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If you are going to turn around and deny that or demand we cite German law, then your argument has lost all credibility and become nothing more than joke.


Why not just cite the German statutes that made murder and torture legal instead of just parroting your opinion?

If you could back up your claim, you'd just do it rather than keep rambling endlessly

I can show you Roe V Wade.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Let me guess, you're christian, right? And with that statement now everyone knows just the type of person you are. Thank you.


I don't consider myself a Christian nor do I feel all Christians are bad or all non believers are either. I just happen to believe if a person dies while taking another person's life they got what they asked for. If you feel superior judging me more power to you. I could really care less what you think of me.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I don't consider myself a Christian nor do I feel all Christians are bad or all non believers are either. I just happen to believe if a person dies while taking another person's life they got what they asked for. If you feel superior judging me more power to you. I could really care less what you think of me.


At least your honest about wanting people dead that you deem unworthy.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> At least your honest about wanting people dead that you deem unworthy.


I wish death on no one but if a shooter dies while killing inocent people or a women dies while killing her child I look at it as karma.


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> At least your honest about wanting people dead that you deem unworthy.


Stats show that aborted babies face that reality..... you support abortion.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why not just cite the German statutes that made murder and torture legal instead of just parroting your opinion?
> 
> If you could back up your claim, you'd just do it rather than keep rambling endlessly
> 
> I can show you Roe V Wade.


The fact that the atrocities mengekr and other Nazis perpetrated were not only allowed to continue,but many were promoted and honored for their work suggests that they were happening within the bounds of the law on all counts. Perhaps some were outside the law, but again the arrests and trials for them did not come from within the Reich. They were tried by foreigners within the global community.

I guess if you co od back up your claim with links to statutes, you might do the same. I don' care if you do or not. But, you could if others providing opposing evidence seems so pertinent to you, seems like you could provide the same.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I wish death on no one but if a shooter dies while killing inocent people or a women dies while killing her child I look at it as karma.


You did say this, "If they go bak to back alley abortions I'm good with that. If these women who kill their children die while doing it I'm fine with that too." or this, "I just happen to believe if a person dies while taking another person's life they got what they asked for." didn't you? 

So you want women that abort to pay for their choice with their life, right?


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> You did say this, "If they go bak to back alley abortions I'm good with that. If these women who kill their children die while doing it I'm fine with that too." or this, "I just happen to believe if a person dies while taking another person's life they got what they asked for." didn't you?
> 
> So you want woman that abort to pay for their choice with their life, right?


As I said a shooter dies while killing or a women does while killing all the same to me... karma don't think I could be any clearer.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> As I said a that shooter dies while killing or a women does while killing all the same to me... karma don't think I could be any clearer.


Backpedal much? You said it, clearly meant it, just own it. You don't care what anyone thinks, right?


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Backpedal much? You said it, clearly meant it, just own it. You don't care what anyone thinks, right?


Spin much. Did I stutter? No I don't care if she has to kill in a back alley. I don't care if any murderer dies. I certainly don't care what a person who supports murder of innocents thinks of me.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Spin much. Did I stutter? No I don't care if she has to kill in a back alley. I don't care if any murderer dies. I certainly don't care what a person who supports murder of innocents thinks of me.


Spin much? I'm not the one trying to say I didn't mean what I clearly said. You're doing that. 

You said, "If they go bak to back alley abortions I'm good with that. If these women who kill their children die while doing it I'm fine with that too." That is wanting women dead that you deem unworthy.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Spin much? I'm not the one trying to say I didn't mean what I clearly said. You're doing that.
> 
> You said, "If they go bak to back alley abortions I'm good with that. If these women who kill their children die while doing it I'm fine with that too." That is wanting women dead that you deem unworthy.


Bless your heart you seem to be confused by the fact that I am not playing your silly little games. If you can't understand what I said that is your problem.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Bless your heart you seem to be confused by the fact that I am not playing your silly little games. If you can't understand what I said that is your problem.


Well, aren't you passive aggressive thang. You can fuss all you'd like but you still said you want women dead because you think they're unworthy. 

It's a good think to let everyone know what you really are.


----------



## Txsteader

deleted


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> At least your honest about wanting people dead that you deem unworthy.





kasilofhome said:


> Stats show that aborted babies face that reality..... you support abortion.


Touche'


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Well, aren't you passive aggressive thang. You can fuss all you'd like but you still said you want women dead because you think they're unworthy.
> 
> It's a good think to let everyone know what you really are.


Do you see that wanting women to be able to abort at an time for any reason is at all similar to to giving women the choice to kill children they deem unworthy? And, that they will or should probably be held to the same or similar standard of judgment if there is to be any consistency?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Pixie
At least your honest about wanting people dead that you deem unworthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kasilofhome 
Stats show that aborted babies face that reality..... you support abortion.



Txsteader said:


> Touche'


I don't want anyone dead. The OP stated she wants women dead because they chose to terminate their pregnancy. 

I support a women's right to choose. What is that so hard to understand? I'm pro choice, not pro abortion. Most people that are pro choice are not pro abortion. There's a difference, you have to be absolutely daft not to understand that.


----------



## kasilofhome

What are the options with pro choice 

Not to kill..that label for that position is better known as pro life...as in no option..no choice
Or
To kill.

You state your pro choice .. I understand that label is nicer sounding that
Pro death pro killing
Aka..what does it matter now...its just a baby


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> What are the options with pro choice
> 
> Not to kill..that label is collector life
> Or
> To kill.
> 
> You state your pro choice .. I understand that label is nicer sounding that
> Pro death pro lifter
> Aka..what does it matter now...its just a baby


No clue what you're trying to say, either try again or get someone to translate.


----------



## kasilofhome

Sorry ...fixed now


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Sorry ...fixed now


Is there a question? I'm still confused.


----------



## kasilofhome

Regent really....come on


----------



## Guest

dixiegal62 said:


> Bless your heart you seem to be confused by the fact that I am not playing your silly little games. If you can't understand what I said that is your problem.


Is it not amazing how people get to choose the meaning of words. The phrase using "if (and saying that) you do not care, is not the same as saying you are "wishing it". But hey even the SCOTUS did it.


----------



## keenataz

Jolly said:


> Nothing Mengele did was legal? Can you say that with a straight face? Of course what he did was legal.
> 
> As you have repeatedly pointed out to me and everybody else, abortion (killing human life) is legal in the U.S.
> 
> What Mengele did (killing human life) was legal in Germany at the time. If you are going to turn around and deny that or demand we cite German law, then your argument has lost all credibility and become nothing more than joke.



You keep saying legal in Germany, right? You do know he conducted those experiments in Auschwitz? That was in occupied Poland. He did it hidden away in a concentration camp. And as the Russians moved west, he fled and destroyed his records which seems strange behavior for someone doing something legal.

If it was legal why did he not open a clinic in downtown Munich and do his experiments there and makely weekly public reports?


----------



## keenataz

dixiegal62 said:


> Bless your heart you seem to be confused by the fact that I am not playing your silly little games. If you can't understand what I said that is your problem.


The way I read it was you did not care if a woman died during a back alley abortion. And I thought that statement was absolutely didgusting.


----------



## painterswife

keenataz said:


> You keep saying legal in Germany, right? You do know he conducted those experiments in Auschwitz? That was in occupied Poland. He did it hidden away in a concentration camp. And as the Russians moved west, he fled and destroyed his records which seems strange behavior for someone doing something legal.
> 
> If it was legal why did he not open a clinic in downtown Munich and do his experiments there and makely weekly public reports?


This post is worth repeating, over and over and over.


----------



## kasilofhome

During the events and time of the events it was under German control.... it was not the Polish government...supervision, or authority but under Germany command.


----------



## kasilofhome

If wanting death is disgusting why be pro choice.... word games yes but it kills life... hard to climb up the pillar of higher morality carrying dead human baby parts.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> During the events and time of the events it was under German control.... it was not the Polish government...supervision, or authority but under Germany command.


Just because the government did it does not make it legal. Is that not one of your refrains.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Let me guess, you're christian, right? And with that statement now everyone knows just the type of person you are. Thank you.


The Bible tells us to face evil in every opportunity we have it facing us. There are evil people on this planet. If someone wants to purposely kill their child with the State backing their play then there is little we can do.

There is an Irish Blessing that you may be aware of:
[FONT=georgia, bookman old style, palatino linotype, book antiqua, palatino, trebuchet ms, helvetica, garamond, sans-serif, arial, verdana, avante garde, century gothic, comic sans ms, times, times new roman, serif]May those that love us, love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if He doesn't turn their hearts,
May He turn their ankles
So we will know them by their limping.

There are a few people on this thread that appear to be limping...
[/FONT]


----------



## dixiegal62

keenataz said:


> The way I read it was you did not care if a woman died during a back alley abortion. And I thought that statement was absolutely didgusting.


Then we are even because I find abortion discusting.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The question you asked has been repeated countless times on this thread.
> The answers haven't changed
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure you've said that several times also
> 
> See you soon!



No one has asked my specific question in this thread. You cannot answer it without destroying you side. As a matter of fact you won't answer it, I would bet that you're going to spin off another reply for this response... 

BTW, I said that there is no reason to continue, I didn't say what you think I said, go back and read it. Oh, heck, that's right - the only proper interpretation of what people say belongs to you..


----------



## kasilofhome

keenataz said:


> The way I read it was you did not care if a woman died during a back alley abortion. And I thought that statement was absolutely didgusting.


Correct ...operations always carry risks... in the process of dismantling a baby and vacuuming the baby out things happen. Any times someone opts a medical operation the is not need but for personal wants it's their choice so why should I care.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The fact that the atrocities mengekr and other Nazis perpetrated were not only allowed to continue,but many were promoted and honored for their work suggests that they were happening *within the bounds of the law* on all counts.


No it does not, even after repeating it for about the 10th time.
They were all war *criminals*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I guess if you co od back up your claim with links to statutes, you might do the same. I don' care if you do or not. But, you could if others providing opposing evidence seems so pertinent to you, seems like you could provide the same.


It's not "my claim" to prove

The fact many were tried and convicted of those war *crimes* should be enough evidence of illegality


----------



## keenataz

kasilofhome said:


> During the events and time of the events it was under German control.... it was not the Polish government...supervision, or authority but under Germany command.


They were under military occupation, not German law. And concentration camps were under no law. Again look at how they tried to destroy what was going on in those camps when the allies got close.


----------



## Oxankle

This thread has become a joke; the abortion crowd is twisting comments now to suit themselves. 

I too think that it is Karma if a woman dies undergoing a "convenience" abortion. That does not mean I wish death upon anyone, no matter how the painters wife or pixie twist my words. I would prefer that the woman have her baby and raise it to become a good human being. Mothers everywhere have faced the hard choices and done exactly that. 

And "legal" during the German operation of the death camps? How stupid do you have to be to insist that what the German high command put into operation was "illegal" in Germany at that time. Millions of marks, thousands of men were committed to these operations and millions of marks and tons of clothing, jewelry, shoes, personal possessions of all kinds were shipped back to Germany from those death camps. 

Does anyone think that what Hitler wanted done was "illegal" in the Germany of that day? 

Specious arguments from people either mendacious or ignorant cannot change those facts.


----------



## Guest

keenataz said:


> You keep saying legal in Germany, right? You do know he conducted those experiments in Auschwitz? That was in occupied Poland. He did it hidden away in a concentration camp. And as the Russians moved west, he fled and destroyed his records which seems strange behavior for someone doing something legal.
> 
> *If it was legal why did he not open a clinic in downtown Munich and do his experiments there and makely weekly public reports?*


Easier to do it where his samples were stored, he had so many to choose from you know. He was doing the bidding of his government with its approval and his victims were not considered worthy of life or rights.


----------



## Shine

What were they when they were actively performing these experiments? War Criminals? Did the Germans apprehend them and place them up for trial?


----------



## keenataz

kasilofhome said:


> Correct ...operations always carry risks... in the process of dismantling a baby and vacuuming the baby out things happen. Any times someone opts a medical operation the is not need but for personal wants it's their choice so why should I care.


Because a human being is dying. I kind of care about that. I do not see how you can call yourself pro life?


----------



## kasilofhome

At the time of the events happening the were authorized..by the the government in charge ....afterwards they well the government...had to answer to a higher authority...



Sort like the US may say and permit some behavior. And some time in the future....a higher power might disagree.


----------



## kasilofhome

keenataz said:


> They were under military occupation, not German law. And concentration camps were under no law. Again look at how they tried to destroy what was going on in those camps when the allies got close.


And what was their not a co mingling of military and government power and leadership?


----------



## kasilofhome

keenataz said:


> Because a human being is dying. I kind of care about that. I do not see how you can call yourself pro life?


Do something that carry risk....death happens... I not a control freak stopping people from the out comes of their choices.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *No one has asked my specific question* in this thread.
> 
> BTW, I said that there is no reason to continue, I didn't say what you think I said, go back and read it. Oh, heck, that's right - the only proper interpretation of what people say belongs to you..


The only thing different about your question was "person 1, person 2"

The rest was identical to the same rambling going on now about the fantasy that murder and torture were "legal" because some war criminals did it 70 years ago.



> You cannot answer it without destroying you side. As a matter of fact you won't answer it, I would bet that you're going to spin off another reply for this response...


It's been answered multiple times.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "my claim" to prove
> 
> The fact many were tried and convicted of those war *crimes* should be enough evidence of illegality


It astounding that you are unable to acknowledge that the allies in international Court and the new German and Israeli govts later were able to pursue the Nazis actions as criminal and in violation of international law. And, that is entirely different than the Nazis being within the bounds of nazi law at the times of the atrocities that were happening within the Reich's borders.

That's as obtuse as refusing to understand that Austria voluntarily elected to join the Reich but Poland and France were conquered.


----------



## Irish Pixie

keenataz said:


> Because a human being is dying. I kind of care about that. I do not see how you can call yourself pro life?


Because it's _unborn_! Once it's born and it dies that's fine. That includes women that they find unworthy as well.


----------



## Txsteader

keenataz said:


> You keep saying legal in Germany, right? You do know he conducted those experiments in Auschwitz? That was in occupied Poland. He did it hidden away in a concentration camp. And as the Russians moved west, he fled and destroyed his records which seems strange behavior for someone doing something legal.
> 
> If it was legal why did he not open a clinic in downtown Munich and do his experiments there and makely weekly public reports?


He was assigned to Auschwitz.

Himmler, for one, did at least 2 inspections of Auschwitz.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> It astounding that you are unable to acknowledge that the allies in international Court and the new German and Israeli govts later were able to pursue the Nazis actions as criminal and in violation of international law. And, that is entirely different than the Nazis being within the bounds of nazi law at the times of the atrocities that were happening within the Reich's borders.
> 
> That's as obtuse as refusing to understand that Austria voluntarily elected to join the Reich but Poland and France were conquered.


That is a whole lot of spinning. Dizzy yet?


----------



## kasilofhome

keenataz said:


> Because a human being is dying. I kind of care about that. I do not see how you can call yourself pro life?



When a woman has an abortion do you think that the are internally dismantling and engine...it's death to a life....by choice...

Sorta like when the shooters at a crime scene get killed on don't worry or shed a tear..

Or when a druggy od's it's not a issue to me... risk they choose.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The only thing different about your question was "person 1, person 2"
> 
> The rest was identical to the same rambling going on now about the fantasy that murder and torture were "legal" because some war criminals did it 70 years ago.
> 
> 
> It's been answered multiple times.


I knew it. Point proven. Now tell me, go back to page 46 or so... Where in my question does either person 1 or person 2 appear?

You will not answer my question.

Here it is again:
Can a person who does something that is currently deemed "good" and "legal" actually be someone who is doing unspeakable evil?


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "my claim" to prove
> 
> The fact many were tried and convicted of those war *crimes* should be enough evidence of illegality


Law T4, signed in 1939 by Hitler.

knock yourself out.


----------



## gibbsgirl

keenataz said:


> They were under military occupation, not German law. And concentration camps were under no law. Again look at how they tried to destroy what was going on in those camps when the allies got close.


The Reich's rule extended to every square mile within their borders including the concentration camps they authorized. And, the destruction of resources and war crime evidence happened as the Reich realized they were losing ground and were likely to lose the war and then be put under the authority of the allies and new govts that would takes the Reich's place.

Seriously, this kind of understanding that s what happens when we quit teaching history extensively and replace it with social studies, etc.


----------



## painterswife

Just because the powers that be say "do it" does not make lt legal.


----------



## keenataz

dlmcafee said:


> Easier to to it where his samples were stored, he had so many to choose from you know. He was doing the bidding of his government with its approval and his victims were not considered worthy of life or rights.


At one time there were plenty of Jews available in Germany. But they were shipped east for some reason. Maybe because human experiments were legal in Germany?


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Just because the powers that be say "do it" does not make lt legal.


So... our powers that be have said abortion in all flavors is legal and they made it legal, I guess it must be some high and noble thing now, no?


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> Law T4, signed in 1939 by Hitler.
> 
> knock yourself out.


Not what Mengele was doing. Nice try though.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> Just because the government did it does not make it legal. Is that not one of your refrains.


No that is your take

Try getting it right

Just because government support s something does not make it right

One can be legally right and morally wrong.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> It astounding that you are unable to acknowledge that the allies in international Court and the new German and Israeli govts later were able to pursue the Nazis actions as criminal and in violation of international law. And, that is entirely different than the Nazis being within the bounds of nazi law at the times of the atrocities that were happening within the Reich's borders.
> 
> That's as obtuse as refusing to understand that Austria voluntarily elected to join the Reich but Poland and France were conquered.


It's astounding you think what Hitler's* military* did has anything to do with "legal" under German law.


----------



## Tiempo

kasilofhome said:


> When a woman has an abortion do you thing that the are internally dismantling and engine...it's death to a life....by choice...
> 
> Sorta like when the shooters at a crime scene get killed on don't worry or shed a tear..
> 
> Or when a druggy od's it's not a issue to me... risk they choose.


But those shooters may have family that love them even though they went off the rails, it's still very sad. The man who is responsible for the death of our neighbor (the young policeman) was sentenced today to 20-45 years. I don't have much sympathy for him but he has children in middle school, I worry for them.

"Druggies" ODing. That breaks my heart, one of my closest friends has a son who is a heroin addict, it's torture for her everyday.


----------



## keenataz

gibbsgirl said:


> The Reich's rule extended to every square mile within their borders including the concentration camps they authorized. And, the destruction of resources and war crime evidence happened as the Reich realized they were losing ground and were likely to lose the war and then be put under the authority of the allies and new govts that would takes the Reich's place.
> 
> Seriously, this kind of understanding that s what happens when we quit teaching history extensively and replace it with social studies, etc.


Boy you are getting a little upset and insulting. You do understand that there were different laws in Germany and different laws in occupied territories. You do know they raped and pillaged in the occupied countries especially to the east and did not in Germany. How is that for history?


----------



## keenataz

Shine said:


> So... our powers that be have said abortion in all flavors is legal and they made it legal, I guess it must be some high and noble thing now, no?


I want you to show one post here that says abortion is noble. I see people saying it is legal and a woman's choice. But I do not see anyone saying it is great or noble.

It is because of exaggerations like that that make it unlikely pro life will ever win.


----------



## Txsteader

Jolly said:


> I can show you somebody grasping at straws - go get a mirror.
> 
> I'm right, you know I'm right and this entire board knows I'm right. Mengele and many of Mengele's associates, reported directly to Himmler. Himmler, of course, reported directly to Hitler. *Nothing of thsi scale was done without Hitler's knowledge and consent. *To think otherwise, is no better than the Nazi lawyers at Nuremberg, waving their hands in the air and either decrying evidence that was incontravertible or denying such evidence even existed.


Well, unless you believe Goering's testimony that he and Hitler had nooooo idea what was going on in those concentration camps.....even though _he_ developed the first concentration camps.


----------



## Guest

keenataz said:


> At one time there were plenty of Jews available in Germany. But they were shipped east for some reason. Maybe because human experiments were legal in Germany?


Maybe was because they felt the Jewish people polluted the homeland.


----------



## kasilofhome

keenataz said:


> At one time there were plenty of Jews available in Germany. But they were shipped east for some reason. Maybe because human experiments were legal in Germany?


Yea, rewire history... in Poland it was legal.. so the German had to relocate to a country the was pro war crimes..:hammer:


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> Because it's _unborn_! Once it's born and it dies that's fine. That includes women that they find unworthy as well.


If unborn children were not alive, partial birth abortions would not have been debated and outlawed. And, drs would not be training for how to kill them before removing them from the mother during abortions.

Unborn does not mean not alive. And, dead means it had to be alive before it could die.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Yea, rewire history... in Poland it was legal.. so the German had to relocate to a country the was pro war crimes..:hammer:


Okay that post is so off the wall. You are now saying it was legal in Pland so that is why they did it there. Care to show those laws.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gibbsgirl said:


> If unborn children were not alive, partial birth abortions would not have been debated and outlawed. And, drs would not be training for how to kill them before removing them from the mother during abortions.
> 
> Unborn does not mean not alive. And, dead means it had to be alive before it could die.


Did you randomly pick something to quote? Your response has nothing to do with what I posted.


----------



## kasilofhome

keenataz said:


> Boy you are getting a little upset and insulting. You do understand that there were different laws in Germany and different laws in occupied territories. You do know they raped and pillaged in the occupied countries especially to the east and did not in Germany. How is that for history?


Hum....the raped and killed in Germany too. Pillaged too... there are books and films in black and white...documentaries made to support Hitler's agenda...


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> Okay that post is so off the wall. You are now saying it was legal in Poland so that is why they did it there. Care to show those laws.


Note... rewrite history:hammer:


----------



## keenataz

kasilofhome said:


> Yea, rewire history... in Poland it was legal.. so the German had to relocate to a country the was pro war crimes..:hammer:


You are the people who keep saying it was legal under German law. 

Go read history and you will see while Germany was not a nice place under the Nazis-understatement I know. It was much worse in Poland, Ukraine and Russia. There was no German law there it was military occupation law. And that law was continually violated, although seldom punished.


----------



## kasilofhome

Tiempo said:


> But those shooters may have family that love them even though they went off the rails, it's still very sad. The man who is responsible for the death of our neighbor (the young policeman) was sentenced today to 20-45 years. I don't have much sympathy for him but he has children in middle school, I worry for them.
> 
> "Druggies" ODing. That breaks my heart, one of my closest friends has a son who is a heroin addict, it's torture for her everyday.


That's you and your way.... not mine....no apologies from me no guilt..fyi you wrote nothing about being broken hearted for you friends son....etc... you mention the survivors.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Note... rewrite history:hammer:


No maybe it was you rewriting someone elses post accusing them of sayi ng it was legal in Poland.


----------



## keenataz

kasilofhome said:


> Hum....the raped and killed in Germany too. Pillaged too... there are books and films in black and white...documentaries made to support Hitler's agenda...


OK never mind. You keep comparing legal abortions done in the US now to the atrocities of concentration camps. That sounds like a winning strategy to me.


----------



## kasilofhome

The powers that be creates the laws.... the sick military was in charge... the set the decrees, laws , commands during their reign.


----------



## Shine

keenataz said:


> I want you to show one post here that says abortion is noble. I see people saying it is legal and a woman's choice. But I do not see anyone saying it is great or noble.
> 
> It is because of exaggerations like that that make it unlikely pro life will ever win.


Pro-Life will win because it is morally sound. Mothers killing their offspring will never find approval in my voice, I will guide them in what I think is right if they so choose but elective abortion is a heinous crime in my eyes. I cannot see how convenience ever trumps a human life.


----------



## Shine

ooo... I love this one when a lawyer tried to pull it on me...

OK, so when is it proper to kill a child?

Tell us at what age is it proper to kill one's baby...


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> The powers that be creates the laws.... the sick military was in charge... the set the decrees, laws , commands during their reign.


Round and round they go, circling down the drain of despair


----------



## keenataz

Shine said:


> Pro-Life will win because it is morally sound. Mothers killing their offspring will never find approval in my voice, I will guide them in what I think is right if they so choose but elective abortion is a heinous crime in my eyes. I cannot see how convenience ever trumps a human life.


If it is morally sound, how did it become legal in the first place? And I mean absolutely no snideness here. And not just in the US? I know it is legal in Canada and I think most of Europe.


----------



## kasilofhome

dlmcafee said:


> Maybe was because they felt the Jewish people polluted the homeland.





painterswife said:


> No maybe it was you rewriting someone elses post accusing them of sayi ng it was legal in Poland.


No, but but if if floats your boat and causes me no hard
Think what you want.... impacts me not.


----------



## keenataz

Shine said:


> ooo... I love this one when a lawyer tried to pull it on me...
> 
> OK, so when is it proper to kill a child?
> 
> Tell us at what age is it proper to kill one's baby...


That is quite easy. It is illegal to kill a baby, no one is arguing for that. It is legal to get an abortion.


----------



## kasilofhome

Disconnect


----------



## Shine

keenataz said:


> If it is morally sound, how did it become legal in the first place? And I mean absolutely no snideness here. And not just in the US? I know it is legal in Canada and I think most of Europe.


Feminist Agendas :shrug:

I mean - who benefits from an abortion? A person who wants to have sex but does not want to take responsibility for that action.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Feminist Agendas :shrug:
> 
> I mean - who benefits from an abortion? A person who wants to have sex but does not want to take responsibility for that action.


No one benefits from abortion. 

Feminist agendas. Seriously? That's what you came up with? Gah.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> No one benefits from abortion.
> 
> Feminist agendas. Seriously? That's what you came up with? Gah.


Yup... think I'm right too...


----------



## Shine

Pixie said: No one benefits from abortion.

blush, this is what we have been telling you... Great - it is working...


----------



## keenataz

Irish Pixie said:


> No one benefits from abortion.
> 
> Feminist agendas. Seriously? That's what you came up with? Gah.


You know for some reason I believe the anti abortion group feel that pro choice people celebrate when an abortion happens. Put a star on the calendar. When in reality it is not something anyone actually feels great about.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> Just because the powers that be say "do it" does not make lt legal.


That's not what you, and several others have told me about SCOTUS and their decisions. 

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> That's not what you, and several others have told me about SCOTUS and their decisions.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.



No, you and a few others like to tell us we do. Twisting things does not make you right.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> No, you and a few others like to tell us we do. Twisting things does not make you right.


I've twisted nothing.

How many times have we been told what is legal or not, in just this thread.

Now, you are telling me, what you've been telling me, is not what you've been telling me.

I'm sorry, but either you are confused or is there reason to doubt your veracity?


----------



## Irish Pixie

keenataz said:


> You know for some reason I believe the anti abortion group feel that pro choice people celebrate when an abortion happens. Put a star on the calendar. When in reality it is not something anyone actually feels great about.


I agree. I don't understand the pro choice means pro abortion mentality at all. It's been said over and over on these threads but they just gloss over it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

delete double post


----------



## keenataz

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree. I don't understand the pro choice means pro abortion mentality at all. It's been said over and over on these threads but they just gloss over it.


I am one of those odd balls. I personally think abortion is wrong. But it is legal and as a middle aged man I don't think I should be telling a woman what to do. So pro choice


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> I've twisted nothing.
> 
> How many times have we been told what is legal or not, in just this thread.
> 
> Now, you are telling me, what you've been telling me, is not what you've been telling me.
> 
> I'm sorry, but either you are confused or is there reason to doubt your veracity?


You do know the difference between going tnrough the scotus procedure and Hitler decided what he believes and tells people to do.


----------



## gibbsgirl

keenataz said:


> Boy you are getting a little upset and insulting. You do understand that there were different laws in Germany and different laws in occupied territories. You do know they raped and pillaged in the occupied countries especially to the east and did not in Germany. How is that for history?


Upset, nah, no one's saying anything I haven't heard from some others before. It',s not shocking. Insulting, well insult and hurt feelings are not mine to control.

Pretending there was no raping and pillaging within Germany's traditional borders and it only happened on conquered areas is laughable.

And pretending that locations of concentration camps us somehow indicative of whether the Reich ran them or were fully apprised and directed their operatipns because the weren't all in Berlin, is as laughable as claiming Roosevelt and the dod were somehow not in charge of our internment camps in ww2 cause they weren't all in DC. Oh please.


----------



## kasilofhome

Pro life= anti abortion...yep logic
Pro choice=




What is the choice..... the option to kill or not to kill optional...both choice are acceptable yea..... freedom to kill at will


----------



## Jolly

Let us change "pro-choice" to "pro-killing".

The second term seems to be a more factual representation of the stance of those who advocate snuffing out human life...or perhaps maybe refer to the current conundrum as _Mengele's Razor_.

Mengele's Razor - Those unborn, inconvenient to the functioning of the Reich...oops, sorry...Those unborn, inconvenient to the functioning of the individual female must die.


----------



## keenataz

gibbsgirl said:


> Upset, nah, no one's saying anything I haven't heard from some others before. It',s not shocking. Insulting, well insult and hurt feelings are not mine to control.
> 
> Pretending there was no raping and pillaging within Germany's traditional borders and it only happened on conquered areas is laughable.
> 
> And pretending that locations of concentration camps us somehow indicative of whether the Reich ran them or were fully apprised and directed their operatipns because the weren't all in Berlin, is as laughable as claiming Roosevelt and the dod were somehow not in charge of our internment camps in ww2 cause they weren't all in DC. Oh please.


No I believe those internment camps were in the US and under American law, correct. While I think a better example would be Gitmo-not quite run the same as prisons in the US, correct? Why because not in the US. Understand now-different country. Or maybe those Black prisons we heard about?


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> You do know the difference between going tnrough the scotus procedure and Hitler decided what he believes and tells people to do.


Hitler was democratically elected by the German people.


----------



## keenataz

Jolly said:


> Let us change "pro-choice" to "pro-killing".
> 
> The second term seems to be a more factual representation of the stance of those who advocate snuffing out human life...or perhaps maybe refer to the current conundrum as _Mengele's Razor_.
> 
> Mengele's Razor - Those unborn, inconvenient to the functioning of the Reich...oops, sorry...Those unborn, inconvenient to the functioning of the individual female must die.


I do not even know how to respond to this. Other than keep using the Nazi analogy- they always work so well


----------



## Irish Pixie

keenataz said:


> I am one of those odd balls. I personally think abortion is wrong. But it is legal and as a middle aged man I don't think I should be telling a woman what to do. So pro choice


I've stated ad nauseam that I don't think I could have had an abortion, and that I'm pro choice because I can't tell another woman what she can do with her body. It doesn't seem to matter to them. I don't understand why.


----------



## Jolly

keenataz said:


> I do not even know how to respond to this. Other than keep using the Nazi analogy- they always work so well


Do not respond. Embrace it.

Many think it is the law of the land.


----------



## keenataz

Jolly said:


> Hitler was democratically elected by the German people.


You do know the history? He may have been elected by hook and crook. But he did maintain power in non-democratic ways.

But again please keep bringing up Nazis-It is a winning strategy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Jolly View Post
> Law T4, signed in 1939 by Hitler.
> 
> knock yourself out.


It would appear you have knocked yourself out:

T4 is a *letter* written by Hitler

It's not a "law" passed by the German legislature, or any other part of the German Govt

Hitler wrote a single letter, and even he knew it wasn't legal 

Quote:


> In October 1939 Adolf Hitler signed a "euthanasia decree" backdated to 1 September 1939 that authorized Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler, chief of Hitler's private chancellery[4] and Dr. Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician, to carry out the programme of euthanasia
> 
> Quote:
> This letter, which provided the sole legal basis for the programme, was not a formal "FÃ¼hrer decree", which in Nazi Germany had the force of law.
> 
> Hitler *deliberately bypassed Health Minister Conti and his department*, who were held to be insufficiently imbued with National Socialist ruthlessness and who might have raised *awkward questions about the legality* of the programme. He entrusted it to his personal agents Bouhler and Brandt.[59]
> Quote:
> Hitler and his aides were aware from the start that a programme of killing large numbers of Germans with disabilities *would be unpopular with the German public.*
> 
> Although Hitler had a fixed policy of not issuing written instructions for policies relating to what would later be classed by the United Nations and other parties as crimes against humanity, he made an exception when he provided Bouhler and Brack with written authority for the T4 programme in his confidential October 1939 letter.
> Quote:
> Hitler told Bouhler at the outset that "*the FÃ¼hrer's Chancellery must under no circumstances be seen to be active in this matter*."[57]
> 
> He recommended caution in Catholic areas, which after the annexations of Austria and the Sudetenland in 1938 included nearly half the population of Greater Germany; *public opinion could be expected to be hostile.*
> 
> In March 1940 a confidential report from the SD in Austria warned that the killing programme must be implemented with stealth "*in order to avoid a probable backlash of public opinion during the war*".[70]
> 
> Opposition persisted within the bureaucracy. Lothar Kreyssig, a district judge and member of the Confessing Church, wrote to GÃ¼rtner protesting that the T4 programme was illegal(since *no law or formal decree from Hitler had authorised it*) . GÃ¼rtner replied, "If you cannot recognise the will of the FÃ¼hrer as a source of law, then you cannot remain a judge", and had Kreyssig dismissed.[36]
> 
> In 1935 the Church had protested in a private memorandum against proposals to pass a law legalising euthanasia: this was one reason *the law was not enacted*.[citation needed] August von Galen, the Bishop of MÃ¼nster accused the government of breaking the law and publicly condemned the policy. Fr Bernhard Lichtenberg protested the policy to the Nazis chief medical officer.[71]
> 
> *The regime took the program underground.*[72]
> __________________


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Let us change "pro-choice" to "pro-killing".
> 
> The second term seems to be a more factual representation of the stance of those who advocate snuffing out human life...or perhaps maybe refer to the current conundrum as _Mengele's Razor_.
> 
> Mengele's Razor - Those unborn, inconvenient to the functioning of the Reich...oops, sorry...Those unborn, inconvenient to the functioning of the individual female must die.


Is someone getting his panties in a wad?


----------



## Patchouli

You guys do know once you drag Nazis in you lose right?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Patchouli said:


> You guys do know once you drag Nazis in you lose right?


I brought that up this morning (10 pages ago) they have never heard of Godwin's law.


----------



## gibbsgirl

keenataz said:


> You know for some reason I believe the anti abortion group feel that pro choice people celebrate when an abortion happens. Put a star on the calendar. When in reality it is not something anyone actually feels great about.


Not celebrate. But I do think some rightly feel they dodged a bullet. After all usually the mom doesn't die, but if the abortion is successful her kid always dies.


----------



## gibbsgirl

keenataz said:


> No I believe those internment camps were in the US and under American law, correct. While I think a better example would be Gitmo-not quite run the same as prisons in the US, correct? Why because not in the US. Understand now-different country. Or maybe those Black prisons we heard about?



Actually Roosevelt issued executive order 9066 to create them. Later it was determined that was at the very least not politically savvy to do again. Enter the birth of rendition and black ops sites becoming the next generation of how to handle what internment camps no longer could.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Jolly View Post
> Let us change "pro-choice" to "pro-killing".
> 
> The second term seems to be a more *factual representation* of the stance of those who advocate snuffing out human life...or perhaps maybe refer to the current conundrum as Mengele's Razor.


If it's "*factual* representation you want, go back to Post 1039, where I showed the "law" you referred to was really not a law at all, but merely a letter Hitler wrote to a couple of his friends

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> It would appear you have knocked yourself out:
> 
> T4 is a *letter* written by Hitler
> 
> It's not a "law" passed by the German legislature, or any other part of the German Govt
> 
> Hitler wrote a single letter, and even he knew it wasn't legal
> 
> Quote:


And no one stopped him. He was elected then overthrew the authority of the rest of the govt and became a military dictator if Hitler said it, it was the uncontested law.


----------



## Woolieface

keenataz said:


> When in reality it is not something anyone actually feels great about.


There's a reason for that, you know...


----------



## kasilofhome

Patchouli said:


> You guys do know once you drag Nazis in you lose right?


Really......is that in the constitution....Or supreme court ruling....or just b.s. case one is socially known to be evil and also similar to something you support...and you really don't want to realize the connections to the two.

Freedom allowed to kill at will for personal gain.


----------



## kasilofhome

gibbsgirl said:


> And no one stopped him. He was elected then overthrew the authority of the rest of the govt and became a military dictator if Hitler said it, it was the uncontested law.


Equalant of EO.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it's "*factual* representation you want, go back to Post 1039, where I showed the "law" you referred to was really not a law at all, but merely a letter Hitler wrote to a couple of his friends
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4


Yeah, the equivalent of an executive order issued by our president which will be carri d out until withdrawn and sometimes even after.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> And no one stopped him. He was elected then *overthrew the authority of the rest of the govt* and became a military dictator if Hitler said it, it* was the uncontested law*.


LOL
I showed you documentation that it was NOT legal under German law, and you are still repeating the fantasy, along with a couple more new fantasies


----------



## gibbsgirl

Patchouli said:


> You guys do know once you drag Nazis in you lose right?


Lose according to whom?

I compare stuff to all kinds of past societies to see if they have similarities, because similarities it a lack of similarities can be very telling when trying to understand where a oath leads.

I could have mad comparisons to the ottoman empire during wwi it the Japanese during WWII, they both committed holocausts. So have many other groups in her story. Comparing it to Nazis isn't an attempt to be cluque. It's just usually the most accessible as far as a basic knowledge of facts for the most people in the US, because it's more well known.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Yeah, the equivalent of an executive order issued by our president which will be carri d out until withdrawn and sometimes even after.


EO's are legal
T4 was not.

Show some evidence rather than parroting the others


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> No point. It is like arguing with Hitler.


Lol, so you're gonna complain about others attacking a poster and *****footing around and then call jolly Hitler.

Too funny.

Talk about wondering if someone is dizzy from the spin. My, my.


----------



## keenataz

Patchouli said:


> You guys do know once you drag Nazis in you lose right?


Well at least it's not nazi zombies


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> I showed you documentation that it was NOT legal under German law, and you are still repeating the fantasy, along with a couple more new
> 
> Yea, were they truly following the laws on the books..... Or was there under the thumb of a dictator with military support where the population were lost their freedoms...


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> Lol, so you're gonna complain about others attacking a poster and *****footing around and then call jolly Hitler.
> 
> Too funny.
> 
> Talk about wondering if someone is dizzy from the spin. My, my.


Your posts keep regurgitating things from several posts back. Something bothering you?


----------



## Oxankle

Painterswife asserts that believing it is karma when a woman dies undergoing an abortion is wishing death. This is simply a bogus twisting of words. Not even a clever twist as no reading of the post she refers to can me made to mean this.

I too believe such a death is karma, but I wish no one dead. I would much rather that the woman have her baby and raise it to be a worthwhile human being. Many woman have embraced an unwanted, unexpected and burdensome child and lived to see it become a fine adult.

Fellows; these people are simply trolls. They insist that Hitler's program was "illegal" when anyone with common sense knows that what Hitler ordered WAS law between 1939 and 1945. There was no higher authority under German law. The fact that he concealed some of his orders from public notice was simple political conniving. 

To think that the German high command believed they had no legal authority to deploy thousands of troops, to send millions of people to extermination camps, to spend millions of marks building those camps, to strip the people of clothing, shoes, personal possessions and ship those items back to Germany is pure ignorance, but of course not many people think this.---Only when the allies won the war was this stopped, and it became a crime only because the allies won. Had the Nazis won the war the programs would have continued until the Germans and Japanese were tired of it.

There is little point in replying to such trolls; their arguments are either specious, mendacious or based on ignorance, and quite possibly all three.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> I showed you documentation that it was NOT legal under German law, and you are still repeating the fantasy, along with a couple more new
> 
> Yea, *were they truly following the laws on the books*..... Or was there under the thumb of a dictator with military support where the population were lost their freedoms...
> 
> 
> 
> No, they were committing illegal acts, contrary to the claims of you and your cohorts
Click to expand...


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Your posts keep regurgitating things from several posts back. Something bothering you?


Nah, its making me laugh. Thanks.


----------



## painterswife

Oxankle said:


> Painterswife asserts that believing it is karma when a woman dies undergoing an abortion is wishing death is simply a bogus twisting of words. Not even a clever twist.


Hey, stop posting that I have said things I have not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Oxankle View Post
> Painterswife asserts that believing it is karma when a woman dies undergoing an abortion is wishing death is simply a bogus twisting of words. *Not even a clever twist*.


Yeah, not nearly as clever as when you talked about Mengle after 3 or 4 others did
You showed her, huh?



> Fellows; these people are simply trolls. They insist that Hitler's program was "illegal" when anyone with common sense knows that what Hitler ordered WAS law between 1939 and 1945. There was no higher authority under German law. The fact that he concealed some of his orders from public notice was simple political conniving.


It was illegal, and that has been shown.
All you've done is parrot the same old lines, and resort to name calling

It's really pretty sad



> There is *little point in replying* to such trolls; their arguments are either specious, mendacious or based on ignorance, and quite possibly all three.


And yet here you are


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Irish Pixie
> At least your honest about wanting people dead that you deem unworthy.
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by kasilofhome
> Stats show that aborted babies face that reality..... you support abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want anyone dead. The OP stated she wants women dead because they chose to terminate their pregnancy.
> 
> I support a women's right to choose. What is that so hard to understand? I'm pro choice, not pro abortion. Most people that are pro choice are not pro abortion. There's a difference, you have to be absolutely daft not to understand that.


Speaking of spinning much...you're gonna have to quote those exact words in Dixie's post in order to be correct, but you cannot b/c that is not what she said.
So, by YOUR standards, I think we all can say you support the killing of unborn babies, b/c they're just the mother's body and it's legal.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> I brought that up this morning (10 pages ago) they have never heard of Godwin's law.


Oh, I've heard of it and it's a silly piece of trash that people use when they have no recourse to the parallels of modern day society with Nazi Germany.


----------



## Tricky Grama

kasilofhome said:


> If wanting death is disgusting why be pro choice.... word games yes but it kills life... hard to climb up the pillar of higher morality carrying dead human baby parts.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Jolly

gibbsgirl said:


> Yeah, the equivalent of an executive order issued by our president which will be carri d out until withdrawn and sometimes even after.


How about a quote?

_Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. med. Brandt are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the competence of certain physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen], are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death [Gnadentod] after a discerning diagnosis._- Adolph Hitler

The Reich then went on to kill over 70,000 people, many of them dragged out of insane asylums...


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> kasilofhome said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they were committing illegal acts, contrary to the claims of you and your cohorts
> 
> 
> 
> Read the post that described the T4 in a historical manner. Someone bolded an area to make their point but stopped the bolding where it said that Hitler was the one that pronounced it law... lol - using facts that beat yer argument to prove that you won... This thread is the cat's meow...
> 
> Something screwed up on the Quot-a-tron... the above is not what I quoted. I think we broke it...:smack
Click to expand...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Read the post that described the T4 in a historical manner. Someone bolded an area to make their point but stopped the bolding where it said that Hitler was the one that pronounced it law... lol - using facts that beat yer argument to prove that you won... This thread is the cat's meow...


It said it was NOT law, because his "decree" wasn't legal

I'm not sure what it is you're reading, since you haven't *shown* anything at all


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> It said it was NOT law, because his "decree" wasn't legal
> 
> I'm not sure what it is you're reading, since you haven't *shown* anything at all


Would you please have a talk with Mr. Obama about those pesky Executive Orders?

All of us will be glad to know they aren't legal and carry no weight at all.

And...Just as an exercise in shucks and grins...Wonder what the penalty would have been for ignoring a decree of Adolph Hitler in 1939 Germany?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Jolly said:


> How about a quote?
> 
> _Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. med. Brandt are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the competence of certain physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen], are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death [Gnadentod] after a discerning diagnosis._- Adolph Hitler
> 
> The Reich then went on to kill over 70,000 people, many of them dragged out of insane asylums...


Yeah, then when they'd wipe out much of the asylum pipulation, they branched out to give mercy deaths to other iincurable groups like Jews, Roma, gays, political dissidents, etc. Talk about newspeak, mercy? What a perversion of the word mercy. I've seen people beg to die. The Nazis were not doing mercy deaths.

Newspeak is real and we have to be careful about that as we see or languag evolve. I'm fine if you want to say a car was previously owned rather than its used. But, calling a baby a baby when it's wanted and its body remains when itvdies us fine. Now when you say if it's not wanted its preferable to call it a fetus and its remains medical waste, you've list my ringing endorsement.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It said it was NOT law, because his "decree" wasn't legal
> 
> I'm not sure what it is you're reading, since you haven't *shown* anything at all


Yeah... you say that but it's not really true... like many of your posts. You're using the twist-o-matic again...

I've shown quite a bit but, if you do not mind, would you explain which meaning of "shown" you are using in this instance?

I'll add it with an edit...
[bolding not mine, italics and nice wonderful fuscia text is mine]
Lothar Kreyssig, a district judge and member of the Confessing Church, wrote to GÃ¼rtner protesting that the T4 programme was illegal(since *no law or formal decree from Hitler had authorised it*) . _GÃ¼rtner replied, "If you cannot recognise the will of the FÃ¼hrer as a source of law, then you cannot remain a judge", and had Kreyssig dismissed._[36]


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> You've not shown one scrap of creditable evidence to support your assertion that Germany considered the death camps illegal.
> 
> The fact is, they didn't.


I've shown quite a bit more than you, and what I did show (at your urging) contradicts your claims.

Instead of any real proof, you're resorting to meaningless pictures used as a very thinly veiled insult.

Which part of this confuses you?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4



> no law or formal decree from Hitler had authorised it


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Would you please have a talk with Mr. Obama about those pesky Executive Orders?
> 
> All of us will be glad to know they aren't legal and carry no weight at all.
> 
> And...Just as an exercise in shucks and grins...Wonder what the penalty would have been for ignoring a decree of Adolph Hitler in 1939 Germany?


EO's are legal 
T4 was not

You're all talk and nothing to back it up


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've shown quite a bit more than you, and what I did show (at your urging) contradicts your claims.
> 
> Instead of any real proof, you're resorting to meaningless pictures used as a very thinly veiled insult.
> 
> Which part of this confuses you?:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4


None.

It was a decree by Hitler, much the same as our Executive Order. To disobey would have meant imprisonment or death - Hitler's decree was law. you don't kill 70,000 German citizens without it being legal.

I also noticed you did not say that you didn't agree with the boys in the white robes that there was no Holocaust.

Nobody is buying your "not legal" argument, so why don't you quit?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I've shown quite a bit but, if you do not mind, would you explain which meaning of "shown" you are using in this instance?


So now you've shown the same thing I did.
The difference is you think that threat to the judge at the end made Hitler's act legal when it wasn't

That's extortion


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> So now you've shown the same thing I did.
> The difference is you think that threat to the judge at the end made Hitler's act legal when it wasn't
> 
> That's extortion


Could you please prove that under German law?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> None.
> 
> It was a decree by Hitler, much the same as our Executive Order. To disobey would have meant imprisonment or death - Hitler's decree was law. you don't kill 70,000 German citizens without it being legal.
> 
> I also noticed you did not say that you didn't agree with the boys in the white robes that there was no Holocaust.
> 
> Nobody is buying your "not legal" argument, so why don't you quit?


It's nothing like an EO
It was an illegal order.




> Hitler's decree was law


It had to be obeyed under a threat of death.
That's not the same thing as "legal"



> extortion
> [ ik&#712;stÃ´rSH&#601;n ]
> NOUN
> the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.


Still waiting to see your *evidence* instead of your opinion


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Could you please prove that under German law?


I've shown proof
You're still just opining



> This letter, which provided the sole legal basis for the programme, was not a formal "FÃ¼hrer decree", which in Nazi Germany had the force of law.





> I also noticed you did not say that you didn't agree with the boys in the white robes that there was no Holocaust.


I notice you didn't say it wasn't a family portrait

Now can we dispense with the middle school crap and get back to you actually backing up your claims with something other than talk?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's nothing like an EO
> It was an illegal order.
> 
> 
> 
> It had to be obeyed under a threat of death.
> That's not the same thing as "legal"
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting to see your *evidence* instead of your opinion


Yahhhhhhnnnn....


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> I brought that up this morning (10 pages ago) they have never heard of Godwin's law.


You do understand why he came up w/ the meme, right?

And in the context of this discussion, I think it fits. It's a comparison of the atrocities (some do consider selling tissue from aborted fetuses as an atrocity) and the similarities of one to the other.

Not quite the same as calling a politician Hitler/Nazi.

ETA: Godwin's intention had to do w/ the Holocaust not being minimized by pure rhetoric, references to Nazis that had nothing to do w/ the Holocaust.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Do you understand the legal term, ipso facto? Is that what you are basing your argument on, that the act occurred, it was sanctioned, but* not* by the very strictest interpretation by the most nit-pickey of lawyers, perfectly *legal*?


Why not just admit you can't back anything you've said?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Haven't heard a response as to whether Mr. Bear believes in The Holocaust?


I responded to your silly picture, which is just one more in a long line of diversions



> Opposition persisted within the bureaucracy. Lothar Kreyssig, a district judge and member of the Confessing Church, wrote to GÃ¼rtner protesting that the T4 programme was illegal


Still waiting for something of substance


----------



## farmrbrown

I don't know why such a simple request hasn't been fulfilled. You can go thru the links, it's quite extensive. Start with the first, go to the bottom and read on from there. To print out the statutes and administrative directs in German, might be a bit much to ask though.......

http://www.ushmm.org/professionals-and-student-leaders/judiciary

Start paying close attention to the Sterilization and Racial Purity laws administered by the government. When you get to the parts about sentencing and punishment, which meant being sent to concentration camps for medical research to help the Fatherland gain superiority, well, you either get it by then or you don't.

I think there was mention that the German Supreme court didn't approve any of this......

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007904


This one might turn a few heads, or stomachs...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_for_the_Prevention_of_Hereditarily_Diseased_Offspring



The basic provisions of the 1933 law stated that:

(1) Any person suffering from a hereditary disease may be rendered incapable of procreation by means of a surgical operation (sterilization), if the experience of medical science shows that it is highly probable that his descendants would suffer from some serious physical or mental hereditary defect.
(2) For the purposes of this law, any person will be considered as hereditarily diseased who is suffering from any one of the following diseases: &#8211;
(1) Congenital Mental Deficiency,
(2) Schizophrenia,
(3) Manic-Depressive Insanity,
(4) Hereditary Epilepsy,
(5) Hereditary Chorea (Huntington&#8217;s),
(6) Hereditary Blindness,
(7) Hereditary Deafness,
(8) Any severe hereditary deformity.
(3) Any person suffering from severe alcoholism may be also rendered incapable of procreation.[2]
The law applied to anyone in the general population, making its scope significantly larger than the compulsory sterilisation laws in the United States, which generally were only applicable on people in psychiatric hospitals or prisons.

The 1933 law created a large number of "Genetic Health Courts", consisting of a judge, a medical officer, and medical practitioner, which "shall decide at its own discretion after considering the results of the whole proceedings and the evidence tendered&#8221;. If the court decided that the person in question was to be sterilised, the decision could be appealed to "Higher Genetic Health Court". If the appeal failed, the sterilization was to be carried out, with the law specifying that "the use of force is permissible". The law also required that people seeking voluntary sterilizations also go through the courts.

There were three amendments by 1935, most making minor adjustments to how the statute operated or clarifying bureaucratic aspects (such as who paid for the operations). The most significant changes allowed the Higher Court to renounce a patient's right to appeal, and to fine physicians who did not report patients who they knew would qualify for sterilisation under the law. The law also enforced sterilization on the so-called "Rhineland bastards."

At the time of its enaction, the German government pointed to the success of sterilisation laws elsewhere, especially the work in California documented by the American eugenicists E. S. Gosney and Paul Popenoe, as evidence of the humaneness and efficacy of such laws. Eugenicists abroad admired the German law for its legal and ideological clarity. Popenoe himself wrote that "the German law is well drawn and, in form, may be considered better than the sterilization laws of most American states", and trusted in the German government's "conservative, sympathetic, and intelligent administration" of the law, praising the "scientific leadership" of the Nazis.[3] The German mathematician Otfrid Mittmann defended the law against "unfavorable judgements".[4]

In the first year of the law's operation, 1934, 84,600 cases were brought to Genetic Health Courts, with 62,400 forced sterilisations.[5] Nearly 4,000 people appealed against the decisions of sterilisation authorities; 3,559 of the appeals failed.[6] In 1935, it was 88,100 trials and 71,700 sterilizations.[5] By the end of the Nazi regime, over 200 "Genetic Health Courts" were created, and under their rulings over 400,000 people were sterilized against their will.[6]

Along with the law, Adolf Hitler personally decriminalised abortion in case of fetuses having racial or hereditary defects for doctors, while the abortion of healthy "pure" German, "Aryan" unborn remained strictly forbidden.[7]


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why not just admit you can't back anything you've said?


How about we put it to a vote?

Was the Holocaust (which I notice you still haven't admit actually existed) legal under the law of the Third Reich?

What do the rest of you think?


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> It said it was NOT law, because his "decree" wasn't legal
> 
> I'm not sure what it is you're reading, since you haven't *shown* anything at all


Not legal, but who's standards? Germany's or the rest of the world's?


----------



## Shine

I actually relish this person and their mindset. I've never really been in an abortion argument. While she exasperates almost everyone on this thread, I am finding new things that I was not aware of so I think that she can be used to strengthen my position. Her delaying tactics and flank attacks seem to better prepare me for a face to face discussion. When the person twists and restates what was said, I'll be able to recognize the ruse.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> How about we put it to a vote?
> 
> Was the Holocaust (which
> I notice you still haven't admit actually existed) legal under the law of the Third Reich?
> 
> What do the rest of you think?


How about we just go with the facts?

I notice you still have none, which explains why you want to now base it on opinion


----------



## Jolly

Bearfootfarm said:


> How about we just go with the facts?
> 
> I notice you still have none, which explains why you want to now base it on opinion


Look, someone was nice enough to provide you with facts.

Why don't you address them?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> I'm sorry, but Mr. Bearfoot has insisted for days that the acts of *the holocaust *were not legal in the Third Reich.
> 
> *Your link must be from* some whacko website, that does not have the authority of Wiki...


And all your links are just silly pictures

You're now rewording your original claims, since you started out saying what Mengle did was legal.

Then you wanted to claim T4 made it all legal, and that was shot down too.

Now you're posting pictures but still nothing of substance.

Still waiting for your evidence


----------



## kasilofhome

Was it shot down legally....
Figuratively
Literally


----------



## Txsteader

Perusing discussions on the internet about the videos reveals one thing for certain; they're changing peoples' minds/attitudes about abortion. 

Only 2 videos have been released so far and both show a callous disregard for human life that is shocking and disturbing. 

The 'less crunchy' remark has really hit a nerve. 

Most are able to recognize why the NYT and most every progressive website on the 'net jumped to PP's defense so quickly & w/ such intensity.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Look, *someone* was nice enough to provide you with facts.
> 
> Why don't you address them?


It wasn't you though, was it?

Most of them apply only to sterilization, not torture nor murder, which you still insist were legal, although that's been shown to not be correct.

Most also were before Hitler and Mengele got started

If you have some actual data to add feel free.
The silly pictures are just childish though


----------



## farmrbrown

I guess he didn't read the part about HOW they were sterilized........:yuck:


----------



## kasilofhome

Dots not connect dots well...but...
Newspeak compliance indoctrination sucessful


----------



## Bearfootfarm

OK, I read through the links that would open, and never saw anything that said murder and torture were legalized.

There was a lot about forced sterilization and other regulations about what people could or couldn't do 

None of them mentioned "T4" at all which came later than most of what was linked
None mentioned 'Concentration camps" 
None mentioned torture


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I guess he didn't read the part about HOW they were sterilized........:yuck:


Copy and paste it, since it's clear Jolly won't bother


----------



## Patchouli

Jolly said:


> Oh, I've heard of it and it's a silly piece of trash that people use when they have no recourse to the parallels of modern day society with Nazi Germany.


No actually it is a perfectly valid rule of discussion. Once the conversation degenerates into people comparing other people to Nazis or things happening today to holocausts the discussion has pretty well gone down the crapper. The is not much that compares to the Holocaust or the Nazi regime. Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un, Stalin, those compare. 

As has been pointed out I don't know how many times here we are talking about medically removing something that has no feeling, no mental capacity and to even a lot of religious people no soul. There is no way to compare that with the systematic torture and genocide that was committed by the Nazis. There is no valid comparison. Period. 

And what really kills me here is that pro-lifers are bound and determined that all of those babies be born in spite of the fact they may very well be born into a life that will be torture. You know good and well there are no homes for all of these unwanted children. So what happens to them? Ever think about that? Poverty, neglect, abuse? You really want to force a women who so seriously does not want a child to raise it? 

And the real cherry on the top of this little sundae is how many of you people who are pro-life here were having massive melt downs not so very long ago about children crossing the border? Filthy, disease, ridden nasty children that you were screaming should be stuffed on planes or trains and dumped back into the war torn violence of the slums they came from. Pro-life my foot! 

How many of you pro-lifers are also vehemently against any sort of government help for children. I have seen you rail against feeding hungry kids in the summer and paying for public schools and free lunches and taking pokes at Medicaid and welfare. Where is all of the love and concern for children once they are born?


----------



## poppy

Despite all the back and forth over this and that, both videos show Planned Parenthood representatives discussing pricing options for aborted fetus parts. Whether they are trying to make money or recover their costs is irrelevant. They are discussing selling the parts and that violates the law. They could have easily said they do not charge for the tissue but the buyer was responsible for picking them up and transporting them. But, they didn't. Selling is selling when money changes hands no matter whether you make a profit or not. If a furniture store offers you a new couch at cost because it is a discontinued model, did they still not sell you a couch?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Again, Mr. Bearfoot, do you or do you not, believe the Holocaust happened?


I believe you aren't capable of adding anything of substance to the discussion, since you just keep posting the same pictures, and haven't added any real data.



> Your link must be from some whacko website, that does not have the authority of Wiki..


One of his links was from WIKI.

You'd know that if you had actually read them instead of wasting all your time reposting the same lines and pictures over and over


----------



## Jolly

Patchouli said:


> No actually it is a perfectly valid rule of discussion. Once the conversation degenerates into people comparing other people to Nazis or things happening today to holocausts the discussion has pretty well gone down the crapper. The is not much that compares to the Holocaust or the Nazi regime. Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un, Stalin, those compare.
> 
> As has been pointed out I don't know how many times here we are talking about medically removing something that has no feeling, no mental capacity and to even a lot of religious people no soul. There is no way to compare that with the systematic torture and genocide that was committed by the Nazis. There is no valid comparison. Period.
> 
> And what really kills me here is that pro-lifers are bound and determined that all of those babies be born in spite of the fact they may very well be born into a life that will be torture. You know good and well there are no homes for all of these unwanted children. So what happens to them? Ever think about that? Poverty, neglect, abuse? You really want to force a women who so seriously does not want a child to raise it?
> 
> And the real cherry on the top of this little sundae is how many of you people who are pro-life here were having massive melt downs not so very long ago about children crossing the border? Filthy, disease, ridden nasty children that you were screaming should be stuffed on planes or trains and dumped back into the war torn violence of the slums they came from. Pro-life my foot!
> 
> How many of you pro-lifers are also vehemently against any sort of government help for children. I have seen you rail against feeding hungry kids in the summer and paying for public schools and free lunches and taking pokes at Medicaid and welfare. Where is all of the love and concern for children once they are born?


A 20 week old fetus feels pain.

'Nuff said.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Despite all the back and forth over this and that, both videos show Planned Parenthood representatives discussing pricing options for aborted fetus parts. Whether they are trying to make money or recover their costs is irrelevant.


It's not irrelevant at all since recovering costs is legal and logical



> They are discussing selling the parts and that violates the law.


That's not true either



> They could have easily said they do not charge for the tissue but the buyer was responsible for picking them up and transporting them.


They actually did say that.
I don't think you've read the transcript

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf


----------



## kasilofhome

*kill * kill
*kill human * kill human
*kill human to gain * kill human to gain
*kill human and call it acceptable * kill human and call it acceptable


Is the bolded about the holocaust or abortion
Clearly every one can see the difference because there is no similarities, unless one seeks to make false innuendo to make abortion seem similar to the horrific events of the holocaust......by a pro choice view point


----------



## arabian knight

Who on here said the pills to abort is expensive and needs a prescription?
They are 35 to 50 bucks. That is dirt cheap. So many now are so having sex it is getting to a ridiculous amount of girls JUST to get Government monies, more kids mean lots of free money~!


----------



## Patchouli

Jolly said:


> A 20 week old fetus feels pain.
> 
> 'Nuff said.


Possibly, possibly not until 24 weeks and possibly not at all due to the anesthetics the mother is given before the abortion. At worst we are talking 1.5% of babies aborted and anesthesia is an option. 

So try again.


----------



## farmrbrown

Patchouli said:


> No actually it is a perfectly valid rule of discussion. Once the conversation degenerates into people comparing other people to Nazis or things happening today to holocausts the discussion has pretty well gone down the crapper. The is not much that compares to the Holocaust or the Nazi regime. Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un, Stalin, those compare.
> 
> As has been pointed out I don't know how many times here we are talking about medically removing something that has no feeling, no mental capacity and to even a lot of religious people no soul. There is no way to compare that with the systematic torture and genocide that was committed by the Nazis. There is no valid comparison. Period.



I agree that Hitler set the bar so high, it will be hard to outdo that horror.

But I wonder if the comparison is missed on purpose or not?

This didn't happen overnight, it started the century before in the Weimar gov't. They had a few small backlashes but kept moving forward until society accepted it.

But the main defense in this thread throughout is......"it doesn't matter, it's *legal*."
Germany had a psychotic leader, he appointed people in key positions, judges were intimidated if not influenced by public sentiment, and this medical research was deemed necessary and good for society.

Of course the outcome isn't the same, but the process is very familiar.


Why do you think the half that sees the similarities are in shock that others would resort to the Nuremberg defense?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Jolly said:


> Would you please have a talk with Mr. Obama about those pesky Executive Orders?
> 
> All of us will be glad to know they aren't legal and carry no weight at all.
> 
> And...Just as an exercise in shucks and grins...Wonder what the penalty would have been for ignoring a decree of Adolph Hitler in 1939 Germany?


Hard to say cause most of those that didn't end up dead for defience hid and/or escaped to avoid finding out. If only more had stayed to see what those consequences had been, and somehow not died we could have asked.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> But the main defense in this thread throughout is......"it doesn't matter, it's legal."


The "main defense" is *since *it's legal, you have no right to tell others whether they should do it or not.

Calling it "murder" is false, regardless of personal beliefs



> Why do you think the half that sees the similarities are in shock that others would resort to the Nuremberg defense?


It's a diversion from the actual topic, which is the false allegations of PP selling body parts.
The Nuremberg Defense is "I was following orders" so that doesn't really apply either.

None of the Nazi distractions do


----------



## Patchouli

farmrbrown said:


> I agree that Hitler set the bar so high, it will be hard to outdo that horror.
> 
> But I wonder if the comparison is missed on purpose or not?
> 
> This didn't happen overnight, it started the century before in the Weimar gov't. They had a few small backlashes but kept moving forward until society accepted it.
> 
> But the main defense in this thread throughout is......"it doesn't matter, it's *legal*."
> Germany had a psychotic leader, he appointed people in key positions, judges were intimidated if not influenced by public sentiment, and this medical research was deemed necessary and good for society.
> 
> Of course the outcome isn't the same, but the process is very familiar.
> 
> 
> Why do you think the half that sees the similarities are in shock that others would resort to the Nuremberg defense?


I can't speak for anyone else in this thread but to me it is not the Nuremberg defense. I have not based any of my arguments on anyone deciding to make it legal. I have based mine on medical science.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense



> The Nuremberg Defense refers to a legal strategy employed by many of the defendants at the Nuremberg war crimes trials seeking to convict Nazi perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Second World War. Many of those defendants claimed that they were not guilty of the charges against them as they were "only following orders."


I don't recall anyone saying they were ordered to get an abortion


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> OK, I read through the links that would open, and never saw anything that said murder and torture were legalized.
> 
> There was a lot about forced sterilization and other regulations about what people could or couldn't do
> 
> None of them mentioned "T4" at all which came later than most of what was linked
> None mentioned 'Concentration camps"
> None mentioned torture


The first link has a search bar in the upper right.
This was the search for "T4".


http://www.ushmm.org/search/results/?q=T4


----------

