Planned Parenthood is in Denial
-
I wonder how many of those experts were assuming that the cost was for preserving, shipping, and handling of the remains by Planned Parenthood and its staff?
@Polygeekery said:None of them.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to file that under [citation needed], because that's not what Abby Johnson a former clinic director of Planned Parenthood says their costs were ("$5 to $10" is the cost she quotes for shipping at 2:31:00 through 2:36)
You talk about it like the courier comes and rummages through their dumpster
As discussed in the video that @lolwhat just posted, it's far worse than that. Stem Express simply sent people into the clinics, who were payed commission by Stem Express for each sample they acquired. And the courier does all the work of acquiring the sample, even down to "consenting" the patients. So unless the charge is for using Planned Parenthood's light and breathing the air, it's literally 100% profit.
Given that we have mild-severity population density and crime problems, would it not be better to execute than to add another ward of the state to the prison system?
@riking said:Some people actually did it. Turns out, it's a bad idea and you lose the war. Don't do it again.
Actually, the Soviets won that war. And the PLA won theirs too. So killing "criminals" actually seems to lead to success - it's killing for eugenic / hygienic / emotive reasons that causes a nation to suffer. The solution is simple - criminalize being an unwanted child.
Macabre jokes aside, these quotes cut right to the heart of the matter:
[Z]ero life, as in, not alive, seems pretty absolute.
IIF it's a life, it doesn't matter if the parents are [or the child will end up] rich, poor, married, single, whatever. None of those are crimes worthy of death, much less summary execution without a trial.
-
Macabre jokes aside, these quotes cut right to the heart of the matter:
I certainly think so.
If it's a baby, it's a baby, and you're no better than the prom queen who buries it in a dumpster.
If it's not a baby, it's not a baby, and you're no worse the someone who wore a condom.
Argue week 37 with me, because you honestly believe it's not a baby until it draws it's first breath, and I can at least understand your position, if not agree with it.
Argue that it's ok because the parents are poor and the baby would likely grow into a life of crime, and I suspect you're a psychopath.
-
If it's immoral, it doesn't matter if it's hard to end- it's still the right thing to do
That's absurd. Even if everyone one earth agreed that coveting one's neighbor was a heinous crime, that still wouldn't justify the government creating a mind-ray to prevent it. I honestly don't think it would even count as a Godwin to point out just how paternalistic that whole line of thinking is—some comparisons are just inescapable. Worry about ending your own immoral behavior before you go about telling everyone else what they can and can't do.
-
@cdosrun1 said:
If it's immoral, it doesn't matter if it's hard to end- it's still the right thing to do
That's absurd. Even if everyone one earth agreed that coveting one's
neighbor was a heinous crime, that still wouldn't justify the government
creating a mind-ray to prevent it.You have a bit of a point here, but being willing to work hard to achieve a goal doesn't imply being willing to achieve that goal by what means whatever. Especially if it would be one immoral thing vs. another immoral thing.
-
Even if everyone one earth agreed that coveting one's neighbor was a heinous crime, that still wouldn't justify the government creating a mind-ray to prevent it
Now we are getting into the end justifying the means. If people agree that an action is immoral, they can work towards ending that action without doing anything immoral in and of themselves.
Just because stealing is wrong doesn't mean we have to proactively chop off all hands.
-
If people agree that an action is immoral
Yes, but there are many forms of immorality, and the harm that is due to one form may sometimes need to be set in the balance against the harm from another. We might agree that the two things are wrong (and we might seek to try to avoid the situation in the first place) but that doesn't mean that we can ignore the fact that we are not always afforded the luxury of focusing on a single form of wrong. History provides some really good examples of why banning abortion outright is able to lead to problems, unfortunately.
This is independent of the pragmatic perspective, which states that outright banning a thing makes it hard to regulate it to minimise the harm when it happens. The prohibition of things has many downsides, and so it is relatively rare for outright banning to be a good idea. It tends to be saved for things like treason, which is just about the most serious crime possible.
-
The prohibition of things has many downsides, and so it is relatively rare for outright banning to be a good idea. It tends to be saved for things like treason, which is just about the most serious crime possible.
Jaywalking, shoplifting, and littering all have outright bans in many jurisdictions. I realize that you said it's not a good idea, so perhaps you're against these things being banned- but they are, and it seems to be working out ok.
You allow abortions because it's not yet a child, not because killing children isn't serious enough to ban.
-
Jaywalking, shoplifting, and littering all have outright bans in many jurisdictions.
Two of those are just recklessness, and the third is a kind of theft. Recklessness need not be banned — it tends to come with natural punishments without judicial assistance — and theft is one of the things that is often prohibited.
-
You seem to be saying that littering is just recklessness, and I'm not sure I agree with you- but I'm not sure that it matters.
It sounds likes you're saying that abortion is wrong, but we need to allow it because it's not wrong enough to ban. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding.
I'd disagree. If an abortion is wrong, it's because it's a child, not a fetus. And the murder of children is wrong enough to ban.
Now I understand that many people who say things like that also believe that life begins at conception, and I'm not convinced that it does.
-
It sounds likes you're saying that abortion is wrong, but we need to allow it because it's not wrong enough to ban. Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding.
Public policy cannot simply follow "the science" or "the morality." We have to look at the tradeoffs involved. There was an article about "rape culture" posted in the quick links thread that reminded me of this discussion:
despicable behaviour is not always criminal.
Now...we as a society can't even agree on what's despicable about abortion (performing it or restricting it), so we're not in a place where anyone can truly claim a mandate.
Now I understand that many people who say things like that also believe that life begins at conception, and I'm not convinced that it does.
From a strictly biological point of view, I can't see how it doesn't. But like I said, things like science or morality shouldn't be trusted as absolute guides for policy. Like economics and the ways that people behave, they are simply additional things that inform our choices.
-
You allow abortions because it's not yet a child, not because killing children isn't serious enough to ban.
Actually, no. Abortion is
allowedtolerated because it is generally safer that way.A few years back – when I was working on a college degree I never bothered to finish because it was TDE – I was writing a paper for English. I had to pick a topic that was highly debated and argue my position. Figuring it would be easy, I decided to write a paper arguing to ban abortion. By the time I finished my research, I ended up arguing that while abortion is immoral, it should not be banned. The reasoning was simple: since Roe v. Wade, the number of women who died during an abortion has dropped significantly.
My research showed that while no official studies had been performed when abortion was banned in the US, studies done in other countries that currently ban abortions and reviews of medical records support the theory that Roe v. Wade had little to no effect on the US abortion rate. Sure, it had an impact in the legal abortion rate, but women who wanted an abortion found ways to get abortions, either by performing one on their own (methods such as ramming their stomach against a counter edge repeatedly, or using a wire coat hanger), or by finding a doctor willing to perform the illegal procedure. Since such procedures were generally performed in unsanitary conditions, or using unsafe methods, the mortality rate was fairly high. However, when legal abortion options became available after the Roe v. Wade decision, women no longer had to resort to unsafe or unsanitary abortions. This is not to say that abortion is 100% safe, because it isn't. But it is a much safer procedure when it is safe and monitored than when it is illegal.
tl;dr: the only way to put a stop to abortion is to make it something that people no longer want to do. Stop it from the demand side, not from the supply side. Like alcohol (
), abortion isn't something that can be stopped on the supply side.
-
What I'm hearing you say is "Abortion should be legal, because people would do it anyway if it was illegal".
And I disagree with the bolded part- I don't think we should tolerate something for that reason.
If you want to get rid of a behavior, sure, a blended approach would be more effective. Go after supply and demand. And since we predicated this by assuming everything thinks it's wrong, reinforce that public perception.
In the same vein, I don't think we should legalize crystal meth because meth heads will smoke it anyway, and this way it's safer. Nor was it morally correct to say "Sure, slavery is wrong, but it would be really hard to end it, so we won't.".
Doing the right thing is often hard, but you should do it anyway. To me, the question is whether or not it's (back to Banning Abortion here) is the right thing to do.
-
What I'm hearing you say is "Abortion should be legal, because people would do it anyway if it was illegal".
Then you didn't fully understand. I'm saying "Abortion should be legal because people will do it anyway and die if it is illegal."
In the same vein, I don't think we should legalize crystal meth because meth heads will smoke it anyway, and this way it's safer. Nor was it morally correct to say "Sure, slavery is wrong, but it would be really hard to end it, so we won't."
The issues aren't comparable:
- Slavery rates are affected by laws. Abortion rates aren't.
- Slavery related mortality rates don't go up when slavery is banned. Abortion related mortality rates do go up when abortion is banned.
Just in case you haven't got it yet: I oppose banning abortion because abortion bans don't impact abortion rates, and making abortion legal makes it safer for the woman involved. Why bother with a law that does nothing but make the banned practice less safe?
-
Ok, I think I get you now- but I still disagree with you.
If the law is ineffective at preventing morally wrong behavior, the right course of action is not to condone the morally wrong behavior. Adjust the law, adjust enforcement techniques, keep trying.
I would contend that the reason things like a ban on abortion, or a ban on alcohol for that matter, fail isn't because they are some special snowflake that laws can't touch. Instead, it's because there isn't a consensus that they are always morally wrong.
-
Why bother with a law that does nothing but make the banned practice less safe?
Tell that to the people who are still against legalizing drugs.
-
@abarker said:
Why bother with a law that does nothing but make the banned practice less safe?
Tell that to the people who are still against legalizing drugs.
With (at least some) drugs, there is a difference: the drugs themselves are harmful to the user. Take meth, for example. Meth users tend to suffer from paranoia, hallucinations, repetitive motor activity, changes in brain structure, memory loss, increased violent tendencies, cardiovascular problems, hyperthermia, etc. In addition to this, if the user smokes the meth or makes it, their home becomes infused with the fumes. Depending on the severity of the contamination, this can be resolved with a few weeks or months of decontamination, or the home may need to be demolished. With all this in mind, there isn't really a "safe" way to use meth recreationally.
By comparison, when abortion is legal, and performed by a licensed doctor in the appropriate setting, it is a very low risk procedure.
tl;dr: Your blanket statement doesn't take into account all the facts.
-
Well, if you're going to take that approach, you also have to consider the side effects of making it illegal: gang violence, corruption of law enforcement, and dangerous criminals being at large because the prisons don't have enough room come to mind immediately. I was really speaking more toward the general concept of laws that ultimately do more harm than good. So here's a correction:
Why bother with a law that doesn't get rid of the banned practice but makes people in general less safe?
Or are you just going after a pendantry
?
-
die if it is illegal
Some women who murder their own babies would die as a result of their act of murder. I fail to see the downside to this.
-
By comparison, when abortion is legal, and performed by a licensed doctor in the appropriate setting, it is a very low risk procedure.
Every morally wrong abortion results in at least 1 death- by definition.
If no death results from it, it either wasn't morally wrong, or it wasn't an abortion.
You and I have a different definition of low risk, if you consider "always results in death" to be low risk.
-
If it's immoral, it doesn't matter if it's hard to end- it's still the right thing to do.
Except, you're debating a bunch of utilitarians.
It's only immoral if it's effective to ban it.
I find it funny that no one says, "People keep murdering, so teaching abstinence is not effective."
And things like, "Prisons should be used to reform." applied to "he's incapable of feeling compassion for his victims, he doesn't deserve imprisonment." => By that logic, we should kill him, because he can't be reformed, and we can't have more people dying to him.
As soon as you start deciding law on the effectiveness of the law, you've created a paradox so tangled, it's better just to cut the knot.
-
If someone says that a fetus isn't human, Doc Brown has the right answer: "You aren't thinking fourth dimensionally!"
-
Except, you're debating a bunch of utilitarians.
It's only immoral if it's effective to ban it.
That's not how I read the argument being made by @abarker. He's commenting on the utility of the ban, not the morality of it. It's a necessary evil for him.
-
Well, if you're going to take that approach, you also have to consider the side effects of making it illegal: gang violence, corruption of law enforcement, and dangerous criminals being at large because the prisons don't have enough room come to mind immediately. I was really speaking more toward the general concept of laws that ultimately do more harm than good. So here's a correction:
Why bother with a law that doesn't get rid of the banned practice but makes people in general less safe?
Or are you just going after a pendantry
?No I wasn't going after a
. I was primarily focusing on the safety impact to those directly affected.So let's take a look at your claims real quick. To get an idea of the safety issues, the "War on Drugs" is when the US really started cracking down on recreational drug use, so that's what I think we should take a look at.
First things first: the War on Drugs started in 1971, when Nixon declared drug abuse to be public enemy number one. Below is a chart showing violent crime trends from 1960 to 2013 (data source):
Unfortunately, I was unable to find any trend data that was limited to just gangs, but hopefully this will do. Now, the data show that violent crimes continue on an upward trend for almost two decades after the War on Drugs started. This looks like a point for you, until you consider that this upward trend started nearly a decade before the War on Drugs. It appears that something else was responsible for the increased violence, not the increased enforcement of drug laws. Not only that, but violent crime rates have since dropped below the rate that was seen in 1971. So maybe the initial surge of drug enforcement in the early '70s led to a corresponding surge of gang violence, but it doesn't appear to have been a major factor in the violent crime rate.
As for your "police corruption" claim, that one's difficult to gauge. First, because the statistics are hard to find. Second, because the face of police corruption has changed in the last 50 years. In the 1960s and '70s, police were expected to physically rough up suspects. Now, that kind of thing is cause for disciplinary action. We'll call this one a coin toss.
As for the "dangerous criminals at large" one: that's one that can't be proved or disproved since it depends on how you rate dangerous and how you determine why they were let out early, and on and on. Figuring out that issue is an argument of its own.
-
You and I have a different definition of low risk, if you consider "always results in death" to be low risk.
Low risk to the woman involved. I already made that point earlier, do I need to state it every fucking time?
making abortion legal makes it safer for the woman involved.
-
That's not how I read the argument being made by @abarker. He's commenting on the utility of the ban, not the morality of it. It's a necessary evil for him.
Pretty much. As I said earlier today:
Figuring it would be easy, I decided to write a paper arguing to ban abortion. By the time I finished my research, I ended up arguing that while abortion is immoral, it should not be banned.
Filed Under: Fuck off Discourse, I'll reply how I want.
-
Low risk to the woman involved. I already made that point earlier, do I need to state it every fucking time?
Might be best- as you're saying you believe at least some abortion to be murder, but you're willing to tolerate that. Or that's what I think you're saying.
How do you feel about dumpster babies? http://www.wkyt.com/home/misc/Attorneys-want-to-try-boy-as-an-adult-in-dumpster-baby-case-321529811.html as an example, if you're unfamiliar.
That's a genuine question, by the way- I'm honestly and legitimately curious as to when you think it changes from "Tolerable" to "Intolerable", and why you chose that point.
-
How do you feel about dumpster babies? http://www.wkyt.com/home/misc/Attorneys-want-to-try-boy-as-an-adult-in-dumpster-baby-case-321529811.html as an example, if you're unfamiliar.
So you want me to weigh in on how to handle people who throw babies away despite having multiple[1] legal options? No thanks.
I'm honestly and legitimately curious as to when you think it changes from "Tolerable" to "Intolerable", and why you chose that point.
Nice strawman you've built for me. As I've said before (you do seem to have the memory of a goldfish), I would prefer to eliminate abortion. I think that outlawing abortion is the wrong approach, though. Here's something else that I've said before (and I agreed with @tarunik when he said it): abortion needs to be eliminated from the demand side.
[1] Before the baby is born, there's abortion. After, every state will allow you to put the kid up for adoption. Several states have laws that allow you to leave young infants at hospitals, police stations, or fire stations and leave, no questions asked.
-
Nice strawman you've built for me.
At no point have I built a strawman. I asked you what your opinion are, using your words.
Abortion is tolerated because it is generally safer that way
You said abortion was tolerated, not I.
By the time I finished my research, I ended up arguing that while abortion is immoral, it should not be banned.
You said it was immoral, but should not be banned. Not I.
A strawman is when I misrepresent your opinion, and then go on to destroy that misrepresentation. I've gone out of my way to make sure I didn't, by restating your argument in my own words and asking you if that's what you meant. It's often referred to as a briefback- http://www.velaction.com/briefback/
Or that's what I think you're saying.
What I'm hearing you say is
If I'm quoting you, with your own words, and asking "Is this what you meant", that's not a strawman. that's poor communication skills.
YOU are the one who said you believe abortion is immoral. YOU are the one who said it should be tolerated anyway. I asked when and if it changed to being not ok, using an example that occurs immediately post birth. YOU then flipped out and called Strawman, when I was inviting you to elaborate on your opinion. That's almost the opposite of a strawman- it's literally inviting you to amplify on your opinion!
Maybe you've only seen the term strawman used in Internet Debates, where it's often misused in a similar fashion to the way you misused it. It actually does have a real definition. I suggest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man as a starter.
I couldn't create a stawman for you if I tried- I have no idea if you believe abortion should be tolerated, or eliminated- You've said both. I have no idea if you believe life begins at conception (As you seem to suggest by originally wanting to ban all abortions) or at birth (when you said
@abarker said:Before the baby is born, there's abortion. After, every state will allow you to put the kid up for adoption.
Which strongly implies that you either support 3rd term abortion, or think that Abortions only happen under US Law and the rest of the world doesn't exist).Before I could make a reasonable strawman for you, you'd have to express the same opinion twice in a row.
-
Which strongly implies that you either support 3rd term abortion
Only if you ignore every other thing I've already said. Which you've done more than once, which is why I called "strawman". Though, looking back, I probably targeted the wrong statement. Oops.
or think that Abortions only happen under US Law and the rest of the world doesn't exist
Well, we have only been talking about abortions in the US. The example you gave of a dumpster baby was - gasp - from the US. Since we're talking about the US, why would I worry about mentioning the situation in South Africa?
you'd have to express the same opinion twice in a row.
Now you're accusing me of flip-flopping? Now, without cherry picking single lines this time, let's see you back this up.
-
Except, you're debating a bunch of utilitarians.
Correct. We're comparing the harm caused by the situation where the ban is imposed with the harm caused by the situation where there is procedure is permitted. We also observe that there's quite a lot of evidence on this matter from around the world; we're not constrained to only using information from the US (nor are the non-utilitarians, for that matter).
There's excellent evidence that the enormous majority of elective abortions (in places where it is legal) are performed in the first trimester, and that things tail off pretty rapidly after that. After the middle of the second trimester, abortions are pretty much a statistical anomaly, and correlate only with previously-undetected major deformity or serious health risks for the mother (both of which occasionally happen, alas). Once you're a reasonable way into the third trimester, you can think about a premature birth if necessary, though there's also really good evidence that carrying to term (or near term; there's natural variability) is best for the long-term health of the child, if that's possible. This is an area where medical science is evolving quite rapidly, but the consensus remains that keeping it natural is usually best.
There's also evidence that the abortion rate is largely independent of whether it is legal, and really good evidence that it is safest for abortions to be a regulated medical procedure. The obvious conclusion of that information is that keeping it legal and regulated will save the lives of mothers while having very little effect on the lives of foetuses. While yes, morally we need to worry about unborn children, we also need to be concerned for the welfare of the mothers-to-be too (undervaluing them would be a significant moral error), and we must bear in mind that law needs to not diverge too much from what society overall finds acceptable or it makes a mockery of itself (a different category of problem).
In short, while there's plenty of reasons to regulate, there's not enough evidence to support a ban.
-
Most (if not all) supporters of legal abortion are also in favor of full sexual education and easy affordable access to birth control, which is far more effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies than abstinence-only (especially teen pregnancies), because the urge to have sex is so deeply ingrained (totally unsurprising given how it's tied in with species survival). So they make it less likely that women will want abortions (as well as making it safer for those who still want them).
Defunding Planned Parenthood (or similar organizations) is very likely to have the opposite effect, due to their birth control-related activities.
-
Well, we have only been talking about abortions in the US. The example you gave of a dumpster baby was - gasp - from the US. Since we're talking about the US, why would I worry about mentioning the situation in South Africa?
And China. And Europe. And Third Trimester has been mentioned, specifically. And you specifically mentioned illegal abortions. But even if you limit a discussion of morality to just the legal abortions in the US, we still have to deal with 3rd Term. Are you familiar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Tiller ? They happen, and while it's usually for health related reasons, not all of them are- Doe V Bolton ruled that familial or emotional health are valid reasons.
Now you're accusing me of flip-flopping? Now, without cherry picking single lines this time, let's see you back this up.
Done. 3rd Term Abortions. Do you support them? You've said that
Before the baby is born, there's abortion. After, every state will allow you to put the kid up for adoption.
but also
@abarker said:Only if you ignore every other thing I've already said
Which is weird, because reviewing your posts, I don't see a single instance of you saying "I
supporttolerateAbortion up to week 20". However, I did explicitly ask you when yousupporttoleration ended. Reviewing your response...Nice strawman you've built for me.
Oh. Maybe I have the memory of a goldfish- but I sure can't find where you've set any limits on how late of an abortion you'd be willing to tolerate. And you've repeatedly made reference to "before birth" and "after birth".
Are you afraid I'm trying to trap you? What if I go first- my limit is about 20-22 weeks. I set this upper limit because a live birth has happened with modern medical care at this point. Any health of the mother concerns after this point should be addressed by an attempted delivery, if possible. That limit could be adjusted downward by medical advances- I find that problematic, because it means that today, I don't consider a 19 week old fetus a person, but next week a new medical advance might mean I do.
Or are you realizing that your framework, your rules of before birth and after birth, mean that logically you have to support third trimester abortions, and you don't want to? Perhaps similar to how I feel about that 19 week old fetus?
-
Done. 3rd Term Abortions. Do you support them? You've said that
Nope, you haven't shown evidence of me flip-flopping (nice cherry picking by the way). I've never said I support or tolerate 3rd term abortions. In fact, the closest you can come to supporting that is a line where I said abortion is legal when talking about your dumpster baby scenario. Taken out of context, people can say almost anything you want.
I sure can't find where you've set any limits on how late of an abortion you'd be willing to tolerate.
Oh, that gives me an idea! Let's start by banning any elective abortions after 12 weeks, since 90% of abortions happen by then (I gave the reference upthread). Then in a decade or two, we can shift the market again base on where the new 90% fallow. We keep doing that until we effectively ban abortion! Thanks for the idea.
Or are you realizing that your framework, your rules of before birth and after birth, mean that logically you have to support third trimester abortions, and you don't want to?
That's bullshit.
-
Nope, you haven't shown evidence of me flip-flopping (nice cherry picking by the way). I've never said I support or tolerate 3rd term abortions.
You said that abortion laws have no effect on abortion rates.
You said illegal abortions are more dangerous than legal ones.
You said that this means the right thing to do is to tolerate abortions, to maximize the safety of the mothers.
If I'm actually cherry picking, it should be easy for you to point out where you said this was only true for the first trimester. Or maybe the first two.
-
Nope, you haven't shown evidence of me flip-flopping (nice cherry picking by the way). I've never said I support or tolerate 3rd term abortions.
I don't see him as trying to do a gotcha here. But you've said that you tolerate abortion. And he was getting more specific based on what you said earlier.
Do you think it would be reasonable to have a cutoff somewhere? I'm not sure if this was serious or snark, so I ask explicitly:
Oh, that gives me an idea! Let's start by banning any elective abortions after 12 weeks...
Personally, I think that something like 20 weeks is a good compromise, which, of course, old dudes in black robes has told us we can't do for raisins.
-
You said that abortion laws have no effect on abortion rates.
No, I said abortion bans had no effect. I haven't seen anything on the effectiveness of regulatory laws.
Do you think it would be reasonable to have a cutoff somewhere? I'm not sure if this was serious or snark, so I ask explicitly:
A bit of both. The 90% figure I mentioned is legit[1], though it may be 13 weeks instead of 12. It seems legit to restrict elective abortions based on that figure.
[1] I actually refernced the source I got the figure from earlier in topic. On mobile now, so CBA to find it.
-
No, I said abortion bans had no effect. I haven't seen anything on the effectiveness of regulatory laws.
Slavery rates are affected by laws. Abortion rates aren't.
What were you saying again? Or am I cherry picking here?
-
There's also evidence that the abortion rate is largely independent of whether it is legal, and really good evidence that it is safest for abortions to be a regulated medical procedure.
The problem is that people think that legality means approval.
I don't approve of someone drinking themselves stupid in their own home, but it's legal.
While yes, morally we need to worry about unborn children, we also need to be concerned for the welfare of the mothers-to-be too
That's the major problem.
The concern for children seems to stop at birth for a lot of people in this discussion.
That makes it harder to justify condemning abortion.
we're not constrained to only using information from the US
Yes and no.
Culture does impact statistics.
OTOH there are reasons for hardline bans on behavior, regardless of the harm caused.
Obviously kids are rioting and looting.
Giving them space to destroy won't make that any better.
"They're going to do it anyway" is a dangerous argument, because it can justify anything when used alone. So it sounds very very bad.
I try to make this argument with people who criticize early Biblical law.
That law was a best fit scenario that made concessions. It doesn't mean God condoned every action in the law. It was often to ensure the lesser evil.
-
Hey @Polygeekery, I'm sure this video is totally fabricated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzMAycMMXp8
Abortions that lead to live birth of fetuses, legality and morality be damned?
-
What I find interesting, is that the hue and cry from trolls and true believers was that Planned Parenthood could do no wrong, and Daleiden was a lying liar. Now that the last couple of videos have proven them wrong - that PP is not just committing crimes, but also doing shit that anyone who's rational would find repugnant and morally wrong - the silence is utterly deafening. I guess some of the Rules for Radicals didn't work, so let's try silence and hope it goes away. The "conservative" media's certainly suppressing it in general. That people aren't out on the street demanding the (figurative) heads of PP, their supporters and their beneficiaries (a large number of whom are Democratic politicians) speaks to the depths to which we as a nation have fallen.
-
I think they're trying to wait it out. Then later when someone notices they can say, "Oh, that? That's old news." Worked several times for Hillary. I guess the "conservative" media is too interested in what Trump's doing right now. Whatever that is. I'm not sure that dribbling this stuff out the way they did is the best way to maximize impact.
-
That's nothing.
An abortion that led to a live birth, and then they proceeded to chop it up while not fully dead.
Organs are well preserved in that state.
-
I'm not sure that dribbling this stuff out the way they did is the best way to maximize impact.
Definitely not.
An abortion that led to a live birth, and then they proceeded to chop it up while not fully dead.
The moral numbness of some of these people is chilling.
-
The moral numbness of some of these people is chilling.
That's what freaks me out.
All these legal arguments doesn't change the fact that the person in this video, had this been any other form of health-care, would be institutionalized at this point.
Glee.... at death....
Switch out the fetus for a fertilized bird's egg that broke early. See if PETA goes bat-shit at it.
-
Switch out the human fetus for a
fertilized bird's egg that broke earlypig fetus. See if PETA goes bat-shit at it.Do it at the right stage, and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless you already knew or you checked the DNA.
And I guarantee PITA wouldn't stop until the offender was completely vilified and bankrupt.
-
Maybe I'll see some of you there - or not.
-
Thanks for the link!
-
Either Cate Dyer was really drunk, or she's a sociopath.
Respect Life Sunday Voter Education Project - ProtestPP