Anti-abortion activists indicted for undercover videos smearing Planned Parenthood

[BlueGin]

Hell, even George Zimmerman got indicted.

And when Hillery does. Then what are they going to say?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So from this point forward will all undercover investigations be subject to prosecution ? No more investigations into Government corruption and such?

You're missing the point where the fraud perpetrated by the "investigators" is the more real crime than the supposed crime of PP.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

So from this point forward will all undercover investigations be subject to prosecution ? No more investigations into Government corruption and such?

You're missing the point where the fraud perpetrated by the "investigators" is the more real crime than the supposed crime of PP.

Part of the indictment includes a count of prohibition of the purchase and sale of human organs. So the supposed buyer is guilty but the seller is not? The felony charge is for using a fake ID. If the left think that is worse than a tax payer funded organization selling aborted fetus's then I've got nothing more to say on the subject.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So from this point forward will all undercover investigations be subject to prosecution ? No more investigations into Government corruption and such?

You're missing the point where the fraud perpetrated by the "investigators" is the more real crime than the supposed crime of PP.

Part of the indictment includes a count of prohibition of the purchase and sale of human organs. So the supposed buyer is guilty but the seller is not? The felony charge is for using a fake ID. If the left think that is worse than a tax payer funded organization selling aborted fetus's then I've got nothing more to say on the subject.

Well there's your problem. The buyer committed a crime by soliciting PP to sell tissue under the false pretense that they were researchers, PP did not. In fact they said quite clearly that they don't sell tissue but rather ask for reimbursement of their costs to harvest, prepare and package the tissue. That is perfectly legal.

Like I said in another post, It's your misconceptions of PP and your refusal to see beyond your bias that gives you grief, not PP.

 

[Faun]

So from this point forward will all undercover investigations be subject to prosecution ? No more investigations into Government corruption and such?

You're missing the point where the fraud perpetrated by the "investigators" is the more real crime than the supposed crime of PP.

Part of the indictment includes a count of prohibition of the purchase and sale of human organs. So the supposed buyer is guilty but the seller is not? The felony charge is for using a fake ID. If the left think that is worse than a tax payer funded organization selling aborted fetus's then I've got nothing more to say on the subject.

The seller neither sold anything nor solicited a sale for a price covering more than their costs. That is why Planned Parenthood did not violate the law; whereas the Center for Medical Progress did when they sought to purchase fetal tissue at exorbitant prices.

 

[emilynghiem]

I guess you're new to this country; but here, it the U.S., there are many things funded with tax dollars and virtually everyone pays for something they'd rather not; and very few things everyone agrees to fund.

Hi Faun there is also a history of lawsuits where atheists have successful removed crosses from public property based on PRINCIPLE.

In these cases, what HARM what proof is there that anyone is being FORCED into Christianity or religion by the display of the cross?
It isn't. It's based on PRINCIPLE that the atheist's beliefs are EXCLUDED by what that "cross represents."

By the same principle, if Planned Parenthood "represents" abortions that are against and exclude/violate the beliefs of Christians, why can't Christians sue to remove them from public funding the way Atheists sue to remove symbolic things from public jurisdiction?

So Faun if you are saying one is okay and the other is not,
there is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED going on.

So either the argument applies to both cases, and the Christians have the right to protest and sue similar to Atheists lobbying to remove prayers, references to creation, cross, nativity scenes, Christmas, Christmas trees, Bibles, etc. from funding by any public institution or display on public property.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander.

Either be fair, or the secondary argument is
showing discrimination by creed favoring atheists and secular
arguments, but not protecting Christian and prolife beliefs by the same principles and standards the petitioners of secular beliefs get to use when they want something removed from government jurisdiction.

 

[emilynghiem]

How is Obama's intentional ignoring and violation of our existing immigration laws a 'strawman'? He is the legitimate 'poster child' / example of how Liberals are willing to and have completely ignored and violated laws with which they disagree!

Liberals on this board are trying to make the claim that no tax dollars are spent on abortions NOT authorized in the Hyde Amendment BECAUSE THERE IS AN AMENDMENT / LAW THAT SAYS IT CAN'T BE DONE. So pointing out that Obama, 'King of the Liberals', has / IS ignored and violated existing law to do what he wanted to do DESPITE the Law.

Hillary is another example. In the interview with Cuomo posted yesterday Cuomo asked her if she was willing to admit she 'erred in judgment' in her e-mail scandal. She arrogantly declared 'No' she would not admit any such thing and tried to justify her actions by declaring her intent, when ordering her subordinate to strip the classification level off a document and send it via an unclassified method, was EXPEDIENCY. She wanted to send something quickly, which required stripping the classified markings off of the document, DESPITE the rules / laws dictating she could not legally do so ... and did it anyway. (The article included remarks from other subordinates claiming this practice was NOT a 1-time thing.)

So BOTH cases - Obama and Hillary - demonstrate the trend / practice of Liberals intentionally ignoring, by-passing, VIOLATING the law if it interferes in what they want to do. No 'strawman' - here, just establishing a proven trend among Liberals.

Translation: you STILL can't prove tax dollars are being spent on abortions as outlined in the Hyde Amendment.

Dear Faun I can't find your post basically taunting the rightwing prolife opponents that "they needed to prove that PP was receiving federal funds for abortion" or they can't argue about the funding of PP.

But I disagree, citing the atheists who sue and win to remove crosses off govt property ON PRINCIPLE ALONE "based on what this symbolizes to THEM" regardless if that is meant or not. The cross on the property is not preaching about crusades or imposing any such thing on the Atheist, but the ATHEIST the petitioner is saying "that what it represents offends or excludes their beliefs" and that enough to remove the SYMBOL.

So why can't PP be seen as a SYMBOL of promoting abortion to prolife who see it that way, the same way the Cross is seen as a SYMBOL of crusades or other religious persecutions or whatever it is that the ATHEIST sees in it, regardless if any such thing is meant or intended.

 

[playtime]

So from this point forward will all undercover investigations be subject to prosecution ? No more investigations into Government corruption and such?

You're missing the point where the fraud perpetrated by the "investigators" is the more real crime than the supposed crime of PP.

Part of the indictment includes a count of prohibition of the purchase and sale of human organs. So the supposed buyer is guilty but the seller is not? The felony charge is for using a fake ID. If the left think that is worse than a tax payer funded organization selling aborted fetus's then I've got nothing more to say on the subject.

Well there's your problem. The buyer committed a crime by soliciting PP to sell tissue under the false pretense that they were researchers, PP did not. In fact they said quite clearly that they don't sell tissue but rather ask for reimbursement of their costs to harvest, prepare and package the tissue. That is perfectly legal.

Like I said in another post, It's your misconceptions of PP and your refusal to see beyond your bias that gives you grief, not PP.

The lying criminals approached PP and offered to buy. PP NEVER responded to them. Recouping transportation cost is legal & that's all they have done.

 

[Faun]

I guess you're new to this country; but here, it the U.S., there are many things funded with tax dollars and virtually everyone pays for something they'd rather not; and very few things everyone agrees to fund.

Hi Faun there is also a history of lawsuits where atheists have successful removed crosses from public property based on PRINCIPLE.

In these cases, what HARM what proof is there that anyone is being FORCED into Christianity or religion by the display of the cross?
It isn't. It's based on PRINCIPLE that the atheist's beliefs are EXCLUDED by what that "cross represents."

By the same principle, if Planned Parenthood "represents" abortions that are against and exclude/violate the beliefs of Christians, why can't Christians sue to remove them from public funding the way Atheists sue to remove symbolic things from public jurisdiction?

So Faun if you are saying one is okay and the other is not,
there is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED going on.

So either the argument applies to both cases, and the Christians have the right to protest and sue similar to Atheists lobbying to remove prayers, references to creation, cross, nativity scenes, Christmas, Christmas trees, Bibles, etc. from funding by any public institution or display on public property.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander.

Either be fair, or the secondary argument is
showing discrimination by creed favoring atheists and secular
arguments, but not protecting Christian and prolife beliefs by the same principles and standards the petitioners of secular beliefs get to use when they want something removed from government jurisdiction.

Sorry, but there's simply no comparison between public property and a private organization like Planned Parenthood. Your entire argument fell to pieces the moment you attempted to equate them.

 

[Faun]

How is Obama's intentional ignoring and violation of our existing immigration laws a 'strawman'? He is the legitimate 'poster child' / example of how Liberals are willing to and have completely ignored and violated laws with which they disagree!

Liberals on this board are trying to make the claim that no tax dollars are spent on abortions NOT authorized in the Hyde Amendment BECAUSE THERE IS AN AMENDMENT / LAW THAT SAYS IT CAN'T BE DONE. So pointing out that Obama, 'King of the Liberals', has / IS ignored and violated existing law to do what he wanted to do DESPITE the Law.

Hillary is another example. In the interview with Cuomo posted yesterday Cuomo asked her if she was willing to admit she 'erred in judgment' in her e-mail scandal. She arrogantly declared 'No' she would not admit any such thing and tried to justify her actions by declaring her intent, when ordering her subordinate to strip the classification level off a document and send it via an unclassified method, was EXPEDIENCY. She wanted to send something quickly, which required stripping the classified markings off of the document, DESPITE the rules / laws dictating she could not legally do so ... and did it anyway. (The article included remarks from other subordinates claiming this practice was NOT a 1-time thing.)

So BOTH cases - Obama and Hillary - demonstrate the trend / practice of Liberals intentionally ignoring, by-passing, VIOLATING the law if it interferes in what they want to do. No 'strawman' - here, just establishing a proven trend among Liberals.

Translation: you STILL can't prove tax dollars are being spent on abortions as outlined in the Hyde Amendment.

Dear Faun I can't find your post basically taunting the rightwing prolife opponents that "they needed to prove that PP was receiving federal funds for abortion" or they can't argue about the funding of PP.

But I disagree, citing the atheists who sue and win to remove crosses off govt property ON PRINCIPLE ALONE "based on what this symbolizes to THEM" regardless if that is meant or not. The cross on the property is not preaching about crusades or imposing any such thing on the Atheist, but the ATHEIST the petitioner is saying "that what it represents offends or excludes their beliefs" and that enough to remove the SYMBOL.

So why can't PP be seen as a SYMBOL of promoting abortion to prolife who see it that way, the same way the Cross is seen as a SYMBOL of crusades or other religious persecutions or whatever it is that the ATHEIST sees in it, regardless if any such thing is meant or intended.

Again, same answer as my last post. Private businesses can get away with things which can't be done on public property. Such as displaying a crucifix in a religious manner. Equating the two utterly destroys your argument.

 

[bravoactual]

Chicago’s CBS 2 TV reported that ectopic pregnancies, where the fetus develops outside the uterus, affect 64,000 women a year, a figure that comes from the American Pregnancy Association. The National Institutes of Health says that ectopic pregnancies are “life-threatening” and that the pregnancy “cannot continue to birth.” The fetus also cannot survive.
The Life of the Mother

Fetal fanatics don't care if women die. It's only the fetus life they care about.

They are not "Pro-Life"....They are "Pro-Pregnancy", once the baby is born they don't give a shit.

 

[Dhara]

Chicago’s CBS 2 TV reported that ectopic pregnancies, where the fetus develops outside the uterus, affect 64,000 women a year, a figure that comes from the American Pregnancy Association. The National Institutes of Health says that ectopic pregnancies are “life-threatening” and that the pregnancy “cannot continue to birth.” The fetus also cannot survive.
The Life of the Mother

Fetal fanatics don't care if women die. It's only the fetus life they care about.

They are not "Pro-Life"....They are "Pro-Pregnancy", once the baby is born they don't give a shit.

They certainly don't care about the life of the pregnant woman. Even if the woman's life is in danger, they don't care. They value the fetus more.

 

[emilynghiem]

How is Obama's intentional ignoring and violation of our existing immigration laws a 'strawman'? He is the legitimate 'poster child' / example of how Liberals are willing to and have completely ignored and violated laws with which they disagree!

Liberals on this board are trying to make the claim that no tax dollars are spent on abortions NOT authorized in the Hyde Amendment BECAUSE THERE IS AN AMENDMENT / LAW THAT SAYS IT CAN'T BE DONE. So pointing out that Obama, 'King of the Liberals', has / IS ignored and violated existing law to do what he wanted to do DESPITE the Law.

Hillary is another example. In the interview with Cuomo posted yesterday Cuomo asked her if she was willing to admit she 'erred in judgment' in her e-mail scandal. She arrogantly declared 'No' she would not admit any such thing and tried to justify her actions by declaring her intent, when ordering her subordinate to strip the classification level off a document and send it via an unclassified method, was EXPEDIENCY. She wanted to send something quickly, which required stripping the classified markings off of the document, DESPITE the rules / laws dictating she could not legally do so ... and did it anyway. (The article included remarks from other subordinates claiming this practice was NOT a 1-time thing.)

So BOTH cases - Obama and Hillary - demonstrate the trend / practice of Liberals intentionally ignoring, by-passing, VIOLATING the law if it interferes in what they want to do. No 'strawman' - here, just establishing a proven trend among Liberals.

Translation: you STILL can't prove tax dollars are being spent on abortions as outlined in the Hyde Amendment.

Dear Faun I can't find your post basically taunting the rightwing prolife opponents that "they needed to prove that PP was receiving federal funds for abortion" or they can't argue about the funding of PP.

But I disagree, citing the atheists who sue and win to remove crosses off govt property ON PRINCIPLE ALONE "based on what this symbolizes to THEM" regardless if that is meant or not. The cross on the property is not preaching about crusades or imposing any such thing on the Atheist, but the ATHEIST the petitioner is saying "that what it represents offends or excludes their beliefs" and that enough to remove the SYMBOL.

So why can't PP be seen as a SYMBOL of promoting abortion to prolife who see it that way, the same way the Cross is seen as a SYMBOL of crusades or other religious persecutions or whatever it is that the ATHEIST sees in it, regardless if any such thing is meant or intended.

Again, same answer as my last post. Private businesses can get away with things which can't be done on public property. Such as displaying a crucifix in a religious manner. Equating the two utterly destroys your argument.

????

Dear Faun
What about the whole mess with declining business to same sex couples?
Wasn't the whole conflict over whether the private business had to serve everyone
and couldn't discriminate in the case of religious conflicts over marriage beliefs?

 

[emilynghiem]

I guess you're new to this country; but here, it the U.S., there are many things funded with tax dollars and virtually everyone pays for something they'd rather not; and very few things everyone agrees to fund.

Hi Faun there is also a history of lawsuits where atheists have successful removed crosses from public property based on PRINCIPLE.

In these cases, what HARM what proof is there that anyone is being FORCED into Christianity or religion by the display of the cross?
It isn't. It's based on PRINCIPLE that the atheist's beliefs are EXCLUDED by what that "cross represents."

By the same principle, if Planned Parenthood "represents" abortions that are against and exclude/violate the beliefs of Christians, why can't Christians sue to remove them from public funding the way Atheists sue to remove symbolic things from public jurisdiction?

So Faun if you are saying one is okay and the other is not,
there is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED going on.

So either the argument applies to both cases, and the Christians have the right to protest and sue similar to Atheists lobbying to remove prayers, references to creation, cross, nativity scenes, Christmas, Christmas trees, Bibles, etc. from funding by any public institution or display on public property.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander.

Either be fair, or the secondary argument is
showing discrimination by creed favoring atheists and secular
arguments, but not protecting Christian and prolife beliefs by the same principles and standards the petitioners of secular beliefs get to use when they want something removed from government jurisdiction.

Sorry, but there's simply no comparison between public property and a private organization like Planned Parenthood. Your entire argument fell to pieces the moment you attempted to equate them.

Hi Faun the issue is the FEDERAL FUNDING which does involve prolife taxpayers.

If the prolife taxpayers have a grievance about not paying because a violation of their beliefs,
as a Constitutionalist I believe I have equal responsibility to support Govt in redressing that grievance.

The same way that advocates who don't believe in funding the death penalty
should have equal right to fund an alternative. And if the whole criminal justice
system is too biased toward retributive justice,then believers in restorative justice
have equal right to fund that type of program THAT DOESN'T VIOLATE THEIR BELIEFS.

I think I am just a bit more proactive than you,
and more sensitive in treating political beliefs with the same respect given to religious beliefs.

The main difference is political beliefs are by nature integrated in govt policy and process,
so they can't be easily separate from the state as traditional religious beliefs.

That's why I seek consensus and either conflict resolution on how to write bills neutrally to include both sides,
or to separate policies and programs to avoid the conflict between beliefs.

Very interesting, Faun Thank you.
I agree with your points, and believe this still speaks to WHY WE NEED
to separate and respect political beliefs on equal tracks and not abuse govt to endorse or enforce one over the other.
Set up equal venues and let people develop fund and participate voluntarily in the track that aligns with their beliefs.

This will empower people to get involved in govt, to build the programs themselves if they want those policies,
so it will create a more self-sufficient sustainable society.

 

[Faun]

How is Obama's intentional ignoring and violation of our existing immigration laws a 'strawman'? He is the legitimate 'poster child' / example of how Liberals are willing to and have completely ignored and violated laws with which they disagree!

Liberals on this board are trying to make the claim that no tax dollars are spent on abortions NOT authorized in the Hyde Amendment BECAUSE THERE IS AN AMENDMENT / LAW THAT SAYS IT CAN'T BE DONE. So pointing out that Obama, 'King of the Liberals', has / IS ignored and violated existing law to do what he wanted to do DESPITE the Law.

Hillary is another example. In the interview with Cuomo posted yesterday Cuomo asked her if she was willing to admit she 'erred in judgment' in her e-mail scandal. She arrogantly declared 'No' she would not admit any such thing and tried to justify her actions by declaring her intent, when ordering her subordinate to strip the classification level off a document and send it via an unclassified method, was EXPEDIENCY. She wanted to send something quickly, which required stripping the classified markings off of the document, DESPITE the rules / laws dictating she could not legally do so ... and did it anyway. (The article included remarks from other subordinates claiming this practice was NOT a 1-time thing.)

So BOTH cases - Obama and Hillary - demonstrate the trend / practice of Liberals intentionally ignoring, by-passing, VIOLATING the law if it interferes in what they want to do. No 'strawman' - here, just establishing a proven trend among Liberals.

Translation: you STILL can't prove tax dollars are being spent on abortions as outlined in the Hyde Amendment.

Dear Faun I can't find your post basically taunting the rightwing prolife opponents that "they needed to prove that PP was receiving federal funds for abortion" or they can't argue about the funding of PP.

But I disagree, citing the atheists who sue and win to remove crosses off govt property ON PRINCIPLE ALONE "based on what this symbolizes to THEM" regardless if that is meant or not. The cross on the property is not preaching about crusades or imposing any such thing on the Atheist, but the ATHEIST the petitioner is saying "that what it represents offends or excludes their beliefs" and that enough to remove the SYMBOL.

So why can't PP be seen as a SYMBOL of promoting abortion to prolife who see it that way, the same way the Cross is seen as a SYMBOL of crusades or other religious persecutions or whatever it is that the ATHEIST sees in it, regardless if any such thing is meant or intended.

Again, same answer as my last post. Private businesses can get away with things which can't be done on public property. Such as displaying a crucifix in a religious manner. Equating the two utterly destroys your argument.

????

Dear Faun
What about the whole mess with declining business to same sex couples?
Wasn't the whole conflict over whether the private business had to serve everyone
and couldn't discriminate in the case of religious conflicts over marriage beliefs?

That's about public accommodation laws; which have nothing to do with this discussion. When Planned Parenthood starts rejecting services to gay couples, then you'll have an analogy to work with.

 

[emilynghiem]

How is Obama's intentional ignoring and violation of our existing immigration laws a 'strawman'? He is the legitimate 'poster child' / example of how Liberals are willing to and have completely ignored and violated laws with which they disagree!

Liberals on this board are trying to make the claim that no tax dollars are spent on abortions NOT authorized in the Hyde Amendment BECAUSE THERE IS AN AMENDMENT / LAW THAT SAYS IT CAN'T BE DONE. So pointing out that Obama, 'King of the Liberals', has / IS ignored and violated existing law to do what he wanted to do DESPITE the Law.

Hillary is another example. In the interview with Cuomo posted yesterday Cuomo asked her if she was willing to admit she 'erred in judgment' in her e-mail scandal. She arrogantly declared 'No' she would not admit any such thing and tried to justify her actions by declaring her intent, when ordering her subordinate to strip the classification level off a document and send it via an unclassified method, was EXPEDIENCY. She wanted to send something quickly, which required stripping the classified markings off of the document, DESPITE the rules / laws dictating she could not legally do so ... and did it anyway. (The article included remarks from other subordinates claiming this practice was NOT a 1-time thing.)

So BOTH cases - Obama and Hillary - demonstrate the trend / practice of Liberals intentionally ignoring, by-passing, VIOLATING the law if it interferes in what they want to do. No 'strawman' - here, just establishing a proven trend among Liberals.

Translation: you STILL can't prove tax dollars are being spent on abortions as outlined in the Hyde Amendment.

Dear Faun I can't find your post basically taunting the rightwing prolife opponents that "they needed to prove that PP was receiving federal funds for abortion" or they can't argue about the funding of PP.

But I disagree, citing the atheists who sue and win to remove crosses off govt property ON PRINCIPLE ALONE "based on what this symbolizes to THEM" regardless if that is meant or not. The cross on the property is not preaching about crusades or imposing any such thing on the Atheist, but the ATHEIST the petitioner is saying "that what it represents offends or excludes their beliefs" and that enough to remove the SYMBOL.

So why can't PP be seen as a SYMBOL of promoting abortion to prolife who see it that way, the same way the Cross is seen as a SYMBOL of crusades or other religious persecutions or whatever it is that the ATHEIST sees in it, regardless if any such thing is meant or intended.

Again, same answer as my last post. Private businesses can get away with things which can't be done on public property. Such as displaying a crucifix in a religious manner. Equating the two utterly destroys your argument.

????

Dear Faun
What about the whole mess with declining business to same sex couples?
Wasn't the whole conflict over whether the private business had to serve everyone
and couldn't discriminate in the case of religious conflicts over marriage beliefs?

That's about public accommodation laws; which have nothing to do with this discussion. When Planned Parenthood starts rejecting services to gay couples, then you'll have an analogy to work with.

You are SO literal.

I am talking very generally about the spirit of the laws
and how people are treating religious beliefs and arguments
differently from secular beliefs and arguments.

If you want to only compare LITERAL equivalents there may not any
as LITERALLY the same as you are asking.

The closest I can come to comparing "equal and opposite scenarios"
are close PARALLELS

such as comparing how President Bush took liberties with executive power
and how left and right react to that,
vs. how President Obama took liberties with executive power
and how left and right react to that.
But these are NEVER going to be the EXACT SAME SCENARIOS
because their contested actions were on two different subject areas.

Oh well, you are good at picking things apart literally.
I was focusing on similar parallels so people can compare
equal and opposite reactions, EVEN THOUGH THE SCENARIOS ARE NOT LITERALLY IDENTICAL.

Thanks anyway Faun
Your analytical and critical skills and talents are great to have
here, I hope everyone makes the most of the contributions you offer.!
Thank you!

 

[Faun]

I guess you're new to this country; but here, it the U.S., there are many things funded with tax dollars and virtually everyone pays for something they'd rather not; and very few things everyone agrees to fund.

Hi Faun there is also a history of lawsuits where atheists have successful removed crosses from public property based on PRINCIPLE.

In these cases, what HARM what proof is there that anyone is being FORCED into Christianity or religion by the display of the cross?
It isn't. It's based on PRINCIPLE that the atheist's beliefs are EXCLUDED by what that "cross represents."

By the same principle, if Planned Parenthood "represents" abortions that are against and exclude/violate the beliefs of Christians, why can't Christians sue to remove them from public funding the way Atheists sue to remove symbolic things from public jurisdiction?

So Faun if you are saying one is okay and the other is not,
there is DISCRIMINATION BY CREED going on.

So either the argument applies to both cases, and the Christians have the right to protest and sue similar to Atheists lobbying to remove prayers, references to creation, cross, nativity scenes, Christmas, Christmas trees, Bibles, etc. from funding by any public institution or display on public property.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
What's bad for the goose is bad for the gander.

Either be fair, or the secondary argument is
showing discrimination by creed favoring atheists and secular
arguments, but not protecting Christian and prolife beliefs by the same principles and standards the petitioners of secular beliefs get to use when they want something removed from government jurisdiction.

Sorry, but there's simply no comparison between public property and a private organization like Planned Parenthood. Your entire argument fell to pieces the moment you attempted to equate them.

Hi Faun the issue is the FEDERAL FUNDING which does involve prolife taxpayers.

If the prolife taxpayers have a grievance about not paying because a violation of their beliefs,

Look, this has been addressed a thousand times... As a compromise to religious folks, with the exception of pregnancies resulting from rape, incest, and life-threatening pregnancies, the government doesn't fund abortions.

That they fund Planned Parenthood is not going to change just because 3% of PP's services are performing abortions; when tax dollars are not paying for abortions.

You may not like that but for every person out there who is against that; there is someone for it. Neither side gets everything they want. There has to be compromise. The compromise here is to fund Planned Parenthood but not for abortions performed at their clinics.

 

[Faun]

Translation: you STILL can't prove tax dollars are being spent on abortions as outlined in the Hyde Amendment.

Dear Faun I can't find your post basically taunting the rightwing prolife opponents that "they needed to prove that PP was receiving federal funds for abortion" or they can't argue about the funding of PP.

But I disagree, citing the atheists who sue and win to remove crosses off govt property ON PRINCIPLE ALONE "based on what this symbolizes to THEM" regardless if that is meant or not. The cross on the property is not preaching about crusades or imposing any such thing on the Atheist, but the ATHEIST the petitioner is saying "that what it represents offends or excludes their beliefs" and that enough to remove the SYMBOL.

So why can't PP be seen as a SYMBOL of promoting abortion to prolife who see it that way, the same way the Cross is seen as a SYMBOL of crusades or other religious persecutions or whatever it is that the ATHEIST sees in it, regardless if any such thing is meant or intended.

Again, same answer as my last post. Private businesses can get away with things which can't be done on public property. Such as displaying a crucifix in a religious manner. Equating the two utterly destroys your argument.

????

Dear Faun
What about the whole mess with declining business to same sex couples?
Wasn't the whole conflict over whether the private business had to serve everyone
and couldn't discriminate in the case of religious conflicts over marriage beliefs?

That's about public accommodation laws; which have nothing to do with this discussion. When Planned Parenthood starts rejecting services to gay couples, then you'll have an analogy to work with.

You are SO literal.

I am talking very generally about the spirit of the laws
and how people are treating religious beliefs and arguments
differently from secular beliefs and arguments.

If you want to only compare LITERAL equivalents there may not any
as LITERALLY the same as you are asking.

The closest I can come to comparing "equal and opposite scenarios"
are close PARALLELS

such as comparing how President Bush took liberties with executive power
and how left and right react to that,
vs. how President Obama took liberties with executive power
and how left and right react to that.
But these are NEVER going to be the EXACT SAME SCENARIOS
because their contested actions were on two different subject areas.

Oh well, you are good at picking things apart literally.
I was focusing on similar parallels so people can compare
equal and opposite reactions, EVEN THOUGH THE SCENARIOS ARE NOT LITERALLY IDENTICAL.

Thanks anyway Faun
Your analytical and critical skills and talents are great to have
here, I hope everyone makes the most of the contributions you offer.!
Thank you!

We're talking about laws and the Constitution.

How can you have such a discussion without being literal? You think the law is as wishy-washy as your arguments?

 

[Dragonlady]

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Patently false. If the woman opts to raise the child, she has all of the responsibility for the 24 hour care and maintenance for an infant from the moment it is born, until the child is an adult. The man simply has to contribute money for the child's upkeep. Unless he chooses to be in the child's life in a more meaningful way. If a man doesn't wish to put himself in this position he could either (a) keep it in his pants; or (b) carry a condom at all times, and hope it doesn't break.

 

[bripat9643]

When a man has just as much say whether to terminate a pregnancy, then he should have just as much responsibility. Under the current arrangement, women have all the power and men have all the responsibility.

Patently false. If the woman opts to raise the child, she has all of the responsibility for the 24 hour care and maintenance for an infant from the moment it is born, until the child is an adult. The man simply has to contribute money for the child's upkeep. Unless he chooses to be in the child's life in a more meaningful way. If a man doesn't wish to put himself in this position he could either (a) keep it in his pants; or (b) carry a condom at all times, and hope it doesn't break.

The woman can keep her legs closed, plus she can use birth control, plus she can get an abortion if she wants. So why does the man become responsible because she failed to use any of the means available to her?

"The man has to contribute money for the child's upkeep?" Yeah, that's so trivial! Meanwhile the woman sits home and sucks off the taxpayers.

Sorry, but I just don't feel the guilt.