Planned Parenthood is in Denial
-
Let's stop everything we disagree with, through any means necessary, whether it is legal or not.
You're being unreasonable here.
If you find something immoral, you at least are justified to try to change the law, or to put it in front of the public and give people a voice to the immoral act.
Otherwise, we should tell all the people complaining about safari hunters killing animals to STFU, because it's legal.
Until the trial is done, let's not convict them. Deal?
Except, if you want to investigate PP at all, you're "wasting tax dollars" because PP is above scrutiny.
This is not the first time I've heard of PP performing an abortion and returning the woman to her abuser.
We can also add the Boy Scouts to that list
Well, it's all going to shit, now that you can join either group based on which gender you identify with.
They really should just merge them into one organization, and have a gender neutral scout program.
-
@abarker said:
No, that never moved.
Yes it did.
Insisting you are right doesn't make it so. Here's how the list looked initially:
- Mounting evidence that they are breaking the law. - Regular claims that they are the "only" provider of women's health care for non-privileged women in the US. This is a lie. Numerous other options have previously been listed, plus many standard OB/GYN offices accept medicare and medicaid, while providing more comprehen - Regular claims that PP provides comprehensive women's health care. This is another lie. They only provide: - Basic contraceptives (also available from many OB/GYNs and other non-profit organizations) - Minimal screenings (Have high-blood pressure? They'll refer you. Need a mammogram? They'll refer you.) - Abortions (Most PP facilities only have doctors for abortions. The rest is handled by nurses)
Here's how it looked after the ninja edit:
- Regular claims that they are the "only" provider of women's health care for non-privileged women in the US. This is a lie. Numerous other options have previously been listed, plus many standard OB/GYN offices accept medicare and medicaid, while providing more comprehen - Regular claims that PP provides comprehensive women's health care. This is another lie. They only provide: - Basic contraceptives (also available from many OB/GYNs and other non-profit organizations) - Minimal screenings (Have high-blood pressure? They'll refer you. Need a mammogram? They'll refer you.) - Abortions (Most PP facilities only have doctors for abortions. The rest is handled by nurses) - Mounting evidence that they are breaking the law.
Can you find the difference now? Hint: It isn't what you keep insisting it is.
-
"But, But if you defund PP...."
The federal aid can go to organizations that exhibit a better standard of professionalism and are more cooperative with measures of external accountability.
-
If you find something immoral, you at least are justified to try to change the law, or to put it in front of the public and give people a voice to the immoral act.
Yeah...he did not say, or imply, that either.
Otherwise, we should tell all the people complaining about safari hunters killing animals to STFU, because it's legal.
I agree.
They really should just merge them into one organization, and have a gender neutral scout program.
Then we will really need PP, because if you put that many Eagle Scouts together with their Girl Scout equivalents...in tents, in the woods...we are going to need more birth control.
Also: http://www.scouting.org/Home/Venturing.aspx Such a thing already exists. ;) And yes, I just learned that also...
-
I mean, even if all we get, is an organization doing the same exact things, but treats abortions like a lesser evil, and doesn't act gleefully at the thought of another abortion.
It would be an improvement.
Neither this woman, or the woman from the previous undercover videos should be working at that organization.
Even if you're not serious, and only entertaining the idea of helping a pimp traffic girls or finding ways to smuggle yourself money from PP, you don't deserve my tax dollars.
-
Basically everything. Let's get rid of organizations.
The quixotic ideas thread is
.
-
only entertaining the idea of helping a pimp traffic girls, you don't deserve my tax dollars.
Because that is happening?
Jesus fuck. I should have left this thread a lot earlier. The crazy is just way too much to handle. I am out of here. Enjoy your ideological circle jerk.
-
Well, that definitely leaves the list I mentioned in play.
Indeed it does - and it says something about the world today that very few (if any) people really contemplate and reflect on why so many such organizations still exist.
-
Because that is happening?
Jesus fuck. I should have left this thread a lot earlier. The crazy is just way too much to handle. I am out of here. Enjoy your ideological circle jerk.
As I recall, that was part of a previous "undercover" video, in an ACORN Office. Someone went in to ask for assistance with their pimping operations, including specifically and explicitly mentioning they would be smuggling in illegal immigrants as sex slaves.
I have no idea why or if this is relevant to the current conversation- other than both being undercover videos shot by the same person.
-
The point is very simple.
There's an inherent problem with the worker in either video. Even if it's not something to hold all of the organization accountable for, it's a problem they need to solve.
At the very least, it's a problem with professionalism.
-
But that just means that God gets to choose when termination is wrong.
God gave us choice, which is why He generally does not intercede. And I bet he's
ing given what we're doing with it, arguments and all.
-
No, but it clearly shows that there's no scriptural basis for considering a foetus' life equivalent to a born person's.
In fact that's not correct. Remember, this was about an accidental death. But it also shows that it's not talking about "a lump of cells."
-
You already pointed that out and no-one has contradicted you. What I was saying is that it provides a clear basis, for anyone basing their values on the Bible, to distinguish between the born and unborn in terms of the value of life - whether that means it's ok to end the life of a foetus, or just that it's a lesser sin than killing a born person.
I'm going to go into more detail, since you got this bit wrong again. Causing an accidental death of a fetus can be done in many ways that would do little to no harm to an adult. The penalties might simply be balancing the nature of the crimes, where it's important to note this is an accidental death.
-
...and he created abortion. If one wants to go with the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient god that is. Unless you go with @boomzilla's definition of those terms, because they tend to change with the argument.
You're still upset that you couldn't understand that thought experiment, eh?
-
That sure as hell sounds like: "Let's stop it, whether it is legal or not."
You mean a legislator is interested in making a law? I'm not sure why this upsets you so much.
-
Gotcha. Let's stop everything we disagree with, through any means necessary, whether it is legal or not.
It's the Progressive way!
Let's start with free speech,
Yes, exactly!
Are you really ignorant enough that a legislator wanting to make a law seems odd?
-
I should have left this thread a lot earlier.
This is true.
Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt
-
I have no idea why or if this is relevant to the current conversation- other than both being undercover videos shot by the same person.
Just classic ad hominem.
-
You're still upset that you couldn't understand that thought experiment, eh?
Are you deliberately obtuse? Or deliberately an asshole?
-
@boomzilla said:
You're still upset that you couldn't understand that thought experiment, eh?
Are you deliberately obtuse? Or deliberately an asshole?
The second one sounds good, but neither really applies here.
-
Yep.
99% of abortions are elective and have nothing to do with rape or health risks.
That's 99% of cases where the mother simply doesn't want her child, after she chose to engage in an activity that has consequences.
If there's a heaven, and if we all make it there, we'll get to tell it the children to their face that we were certain they wouldn't have found their lives to be worthwhile.
-
How do you reconcile agreeing that there's a big difference with your statement thatI think if you don't at least see why the "pregnant mother" and "I have a toddler" situations are different enough to at least narrow the gap significantly, that I don't understand.
I do.
It's more like, any defense of abortion could be used against a toddler.
?Or do you view my statement as merely an argument for legality rather than whether it's moral?
I'm not going to claim progressives are innocent of that, but conservatives sure as hell aren't either. Prohibiting gay marriage, being just as complicit in the war on drugs, mandating abstinence-only sex ed, wishing they could prohibit certain sexual acts, wishing they could prohibit contraception, trying as hard as they can to prohibit abortions, etc.Gotcha. Let's stop everything we disagree with, through any means necessary, whether it is legal or not.
It's the Progressive way!
-
If there's a heaven, and if we all make it there, we'll get to tell it the children to their face that we were certain they wouldn't have found their lives to be worthwhile.
I don't see the problem ... since I'm not religious I'm obviously not going to heaven if there was such a place so you'll have to face them alone. So from where I'm standing this looks rather selfish ... the reason you are against it is you don't want to encounter them later on.
-
You're reading too much into that one.
The following was me taking troll bait. But, it's my opinion of it, either way.
[spoiler]
But if you want to know. I believe we'll be held accountable for our actions no matter our destination. You'll have to face them at least once. In the metaphor for judgement, we're all present simultaneously in what becomes a courtroom. But the justification is based on forgiveness. Then your destination is chosen on whether you personally choose to reject or accept God as he is. The key point being, you'll have to face all the people you harmed during your life at least once, regardless of your destination.
[/spoiler]
-
How do you reconcile agreeing
Because I keep my justifications for legality and morality separate.
argument for legality rather than whether it's moral
Yes.
You see, I'm simply finding the arguments for abortion based on whether the fetus is a live human to be very contradictory, and possible to create situations where the killing of a born child to be justifiable.
I do not think many people morally justify killing a born child from their perspective.
So it is a logical contradiction.
So to me, no one has logically justified abortion in this manner.
However, if one justifies abortion through arguments of mother's vs. fetus rights and the mother superseding the fetus, those aren't contradictory. However, they are quite disturbing if you can't argue that a fetus isn't a live human.
So, to me, no one has justified the moral case for killing a fetus.
My personal moral opinion is that when it comes to committing an action of active killing innocents, inaction is the most justifiable choice. So say you have to choose whether to kill a group of 2 or a group of 5 innocent people. One or the other group will die based on your choice, and inaction will lead to both groups dying. (2 vs 5 people is to give a potential representative weight between mother and fetus. I don't know how to weigh them).
I do not believe a fetus is capable of intentionally trying to kill its mother.
That said, I'm not against taking the less justifiable action of choosing fetus or mother in the case that inaction would lead to both dying. Mostly because, despite my moral beliefs, I'm human and I love my wife more than the unborn child.
-
You're reading too much into that one.
You're reading too much into my post, pass by the
-
I missed the bus. Now I see it.
-
But in none of those situations is the taking of human life the solution to the problem.
Actually, taking human life is always the right solution to any problem.
Filed under: I wish I were kidding about that. Humanity deserves a nice warm nuclear bath.
-
Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex
TOPEKA, KS—Planned Parenthood announced Tuesday the grand opening of its long-planned $8 billion Abortionplex, a sprawling abortion facility that will allow the organization to terminate unborn lives with an efficiency never before thought possible.
This story is about as plausible as the points being argued by both sides of this debate...
-
I'm not going to claim progressives are innocent of that, but conservatives sure as hell aren't either. Prohibiting gay marriage, being just as complicit in the war on drugs, mandating abstinence-only sex ed, wishing they could prohibit certain sexual acts, wishing they could prohibit contraception, trying as hard as they can to prohibit abortions, etc.
Yes, everyone has been guilty of that at one point or another. But at the moment, Progressives aren't on the side of the rule of law a lot more than conservatives aren't.
-
Yes, everyone has been guilty of that at one point or another. But at the moment, Progressives aren't on the side of the rule of law a lot more than conservatives aren't.
That's only because the conservatives aren't in power at the moment.
-
That's only because the conservatives aren't in power at the moment.
Except for both houses of Congress and most states, of course.
-
@antiquarian said:
That's only because the conservatives aren't in power at the moment.
Except for both houses of Congress and most states, of course.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Dallas/comments/3fyw05/random_police_checkpoints/
I never heard of any unconstitutional police checkpoints when I lived in Michigan. When they are in power, conservatives are every bit as bad. They don't mind abuse of the rule of law, they just want to be the ones doing it.
-
I never heard of any unconstitutional police checkpoints when I lived in Michigan. When they are in power, conservatives are every bit as bad. They don't mind abuse of the rule of law, they just want to be the ones doing it.
I'm not saying you're totally wrong, but....Hmm...according to some guy on reddit it was Dallas police and...
Democrat mayor.
-
I'm sure I can find a better example, but that would be a
to 
.
-
I will just state that when conservatives talk about amending the Constitution, liberals will often say how hypocritical they are for doing that and talking about how it's important to follow the Constitution.
-
Constitution is meant to be amended, but it can't contradict itself and it has a higher barrier to amendment than changing law.
Interpreting the constitution, however, has only as high of a barrier of entry as it takes to become a judge.
Because of that, we now have a right to privacy, a right to happiness (as opposed to just the pursuit), and a right to autonomy.
All of which, would have been better served as amendments.
-
conservativesall people are every bit as bad. They don't mind abuse of the rule of law, they just want to be the ones doing it.ftfy
-
I never heard of any unconstitutional police checkpoints when I lived in Michigan. When they are in power, conservatives are every bit as bad. They don't mind abuse of the rule of law, they just want to be the ones doing it.
What makes you think the check points are unconstitutional? Some reddit posters? Great source
</sarcasm>. Not being familiar with Texas law I can't say, but I would bet that the checkpoint is legal as long as they are stopping and checking every vehicle.And, as pointed out by @boomzilla:
Democrat mayor.
-
Constitution is meant to be amended, but it can't contradict itself
Does that include repealing an amendment? Such as the 21st amendment repealing the 18th amendment? If so, we've got a bit of a problem.
-
What makes you think the check points are unconstitutional? Some reddit posters? Great source </sarcasm>. Not being familiar with Texas law I can't say, but I would bet that the checkpoint is legal as long as they are stopping and checking every vehicle.
So the 4th amendment is optional now as long as you violate it for everyone equally?
-
So the 4th amendment is optional now as long as you violate it for everyone equally?
As I recall, the actual SCOTUS ruling was that the 4th Amendment is optional if you're violating it to stop something really bad, like drunk driving.
-
Which effectively means that it is optional.
-
Which effectively means that it is optional.
Only if you can say with a straight face that it's for the greater good.
-
They've gotten pretty good at that due to decades of practice.
-
Once you've decided that "shall make no law" means "shall make some laws" the game is practically over.
-
The ironic thing is that the checkpoints don't actually stop drunk driving. (If you think they do, driving around Dallas after dark will change your mind.)
-
Once you've decided that "shall make no law" means "shall make some laws" the game is practically over.
As I recall, SCOTUS found that the 2nd Amendment was written on Opposite Day, so they can make as many laws as they like.
-
That is a problem. Yes.
The 18th should have never been an amendment.
So the 4th amendment is optional now as long as you violate it for everyone equally?
That's why you don't let them do it.
If it's against the constitution, you make them change the law, or the constitution, which is a higher barrier than say, "Here at this department, it's what we do", or say "I like this judge thing, I interpret unreasonable to mean that it merely has to be consistent"
Then, if the law is passed, instead of fighting random people doing illegal shit, you're fighting a law. It takes the fight off the streets.
Rejecting random stops like that isn't civil disobedience, because you're not disobeying the authority the cops have. The police need to understand that there is a difference between themselves and the authority they wield.
-
The police need to understand that there is a difference between themselves and the authority they wield.
Good luck with that.
Mike Rawlings - Wikipedia
