Fourth PP video released, it's bad

[JoeB131]

Which brings me to your issue with me -- and my choice of terms for the different sides. Of course -- I can use all those terms for the players. But if anyone doesn't feel violated by the callousness and unprofessional medical detachment of these PP doctors -- I would insist that THEY are pro-Aborts. Folks who have no clue of the sensitivity required to discuss abortion and politics in the same breath..

I think you are mistaking detachment for callousness. I think if you got a bunch of oncologists together, they wouldn't be talking about what a sweet woman your Aunt Gertie is, they'd be talking about how gross her colon polyps were when they removed them.

If you can't respect that you are advocating for ending a life without some feeling attached -- you ARE a zealot fringe. And if you CAN -- you can work with the vast middle to make abortion rarer and more dignified. Learned a lot in this thread about "de-sensitizing" the topic. We get farther if we all agree to treat it with respect.

When you argue about viability, with the definition centering around survival OUTSIDE the womb, you already lost that sensitivity. Because that little baby fetus is PERFECTLY "viable" where it is -- til you end it...

Quite the contrary, I think medical providers have to have a certain level of detatchment to do their jobs. Otherwise, they'd all lose their shit after they lost too many patients. Medicine is not for the faint of heart. There's a lot of gross stuff most of us wouldn't want to deal with.

Now, when we are talking about these late abortions (not late term, since the fetus isn't coming to term), yes, you are talking about women who probably wanted the pregnancy and something went wrong. and, yes, if the Doctors talked this way in the patient's presence, that would be a real problem with professionalism.

Talking this way with what they think are fellow medical professionals intentionally trying to goad them into making these kinds of comments, and then editing them out of context... I just can't get quite as upset about that.

 

[EverCurious]

Interesting. So you're saying that the only reason women get abortions is to sell the baby to medical research?
...

No.

I didn't say anything about why woman get abortions. I said the rationalization for allowing such under law, is that the pre-born baby is a clump of inviable tissue. And that the discussions presented in the numerous videos, proves that such is not the case at all. That what is being destroyed is a perfectly viable human baby developing in utero; and that the degenerate process has now devolved into the selling of developing organs, such that would not be present in inviable fetal mass.

But since you brought it up. Women get abortions to avoid the responsibility of bearing the child they conceived through their own willful and wanton behavior; which is the fundamental degenerate notion that undermined the cultural road forming the slippery slope, upon which we have fallen to the pitiful point where the process has developed into murdering the most innocent of human life so that their tiny little corpses can be sold to the highest bidder.

So basically even though I posted the reasoning of Roe vs Wade so you could educate yourself about the legal and moral implications in that ruling, you choose to continue to believe, in defiance of not only the highest courts ruling on the matter, but that of over half the state and district courts, and also the vast majority of the medical community that the argument is not "a clump of cells" but rather "viability"?

It is a woman's choice until the potential life is viable. You want to believe life starts at conception, that is, of course, your right. However, others do /not/ believe that, and that is /their/ right as well. Same shit with homosexuality being "icky", and that is why abortion (at least in the first trimester) will almost undoubtedly never be illegal (unless we get another zealot in the oval office with a pen and a phone heh)


That said, I do agree, abortion is not a solution for wanton behavior, but that is, in my opinion, another failing of the church's touch upon this country; pushing that abstinence is the only solution, when we /all/ know that isn't going to happen. What we need to do is encourage not only contraceptive use, but also put some money into funding say condom design; like cheapening the cost of using materials that would both protect from pregnancy and STD's, and do so without the loss of feeling that is associated with people /not/ using them.

It is unfortunate, but other factors of unwanted pregnancy cannot be altered so easily; drinking, not having a condom and doing it anyway, or my personal least favorite the all too common women's entrapment method. I lay that on the parents, it is their damn job to teach their kids not to be morons, but welcome to the new America where no one is responsible and everyone is a winner no matter how bad they do. It has nothing to do with degeneracy though, it is a complete dismissal of personal responsibility. Unfortunately, why work hard when you can do nothing and survive? The socialists have taken over and there is no way to get rid of them once they get settled in, once they get the votes. Smart move on their part really. It is what the people want, and no matter how much one disagrees, part of being in this country is realizing that the majority rules - if you don't like it, move.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

So basically even though I posted the reasoning of Roe vs Wade so you could educate yourself about the legal and moral implications in that ruling, you choose to continue to believe, in defiance of not only the highest courts ruling on the matter, but that of over half the state and district courts, and also the vast majority of the medical community that the argument is not "a clump of cells" but rather "viability"?

Our forebears didn't give a damn what the highest court in the land said about Dred Scott v. Sanford. They didn't care what approximately half the states and most of the religious institutions said. They knew their peculiar institution was a flagrant abuse of basic human rights and were willing to start a ******* war over it. We know our own peculiar institution is a flagrant abuse of human rights and, while any sort of violent conflict would be entirely contrary to our goal of protecting children from you, we are never going to give up until we have our own 13th Amendment.

It is a woman's choice until the potential life is viable. You want to believe life starts at conception, that is, of course, your right. However, others do /not/ believe that, and that is /their/ right as well. Same shit with homosexuality being "icky", and that is why abortion (at least in the first trimester) will almost undoubtedly never be illegal (unless we get another zealot in the oval office with a pen and a phone heh)

It's not your choice as a woman to murder your husband's child any more than it's your choice as a white person to murder your black neighbor.

That said, I do agree, abortion is not a solution for wanton behavior, but that is, in my opinion, another failing of the church's touch upon this country; pushing that abstinence is the only solution, when we /all/ know that isn't going to happen. What we need to do is encourage not only contraceptive use, but also put some money into funding say condom design; like cheapening the cost of using materials that would both protect from pregnancy and STD's, and do so without the loss of feeling that is associated with people /not/ using them.

There's a reason you have to fall back on telling yourself we're all condom-hating, anti-healthcare religious nutjobs...

It is unfortunate, but other factors of unwanted pregnancy cannot be altered so easily; drinking, not having a condom and doing it anyway, or my personal least favorite the all too common women's entrapment method. I lay that on the parents, it is their damn job to teach their kids not to be morons, but welcome to the new America where no one is responsible and everyone is a winner no matter how bad they do. It has nothing to do with degeneracy though, it is a complete dismissal of personal responsibility. Unfortunately, why work hard when you can do nothing and survive? The socialists have taken over and there is no way to get rid of them once they get settled in, once they get the votes. Smart move on their part really. It is what the people want, and no matter how much one disagrees, part of being in this country is realizing that the majority rules - if you don't like it, move.

It is the parents' failed responsibility to teach responsibility. Simply saying that on an anonymous forum isn't going to help anything. We've been on this downward spiral for about fifty years. The problems are now systemic. What needs to be done is action. Buy condoms for the kiddies. Vote for socialist healthcare and educational reform. Something other than sitting on our collective asses just watching the foundations crack.

 

[JoeB131]

Our forebears didn't give a damn what the highest court in the land said about Dred Scott v. Sanford. They didn't care what approximately half the states and most of the religious institutions said. They knew their peculiar institution was a flagrant abuse of basic human rights and were willing to start a ******* war over it. We know our own peculiar institution is a flagrant abuse of human rights and, while any sort of violent conflict would be entirely contrary to our goal of protecting children from you, we are never going to give up until we have our own 13th Amendment.

Guy, the problem with comparing abortion to slavery is that Slavery only worked because you had an entire instutionalized system supporting it, including the hunting down of fugitive slaves and returning them to their owners.

Abortion only requires the woman to decide she doesn't want to be pregnant. Sometimes a doctor needs to be involved, but not always.

The delusion you guys on the anti-choice right have is that before Roe, no one was having abortions. the fact is, there were probably just as many abortions performed in 1972 as there were in 1974. It's just the doctors performed them and wrote something else down on the charts.

If you want a better constitutional comparison, the better one would be Prohibition, where some religious nuts talked the country into banning alcohol using specious reasoning, but people ignored the law and kept on drinking until we all had a bought of good sense and overturned the bad law.

It's not your choice as a woman to murder your husband's child any more than it's your choice as a white person to murder your black neighbor.

Well, that would depend. Has my black neighbor taken up residence inside my body for nine months? If he has, then I'd probably have good reason to want to get him out of there unless I was into that sort of thing. The fact is, as long as it's inside her body, it IS her choice, no matter what the law is.

There's a reason you have to fall back on telling yourself we're all condom-hating, anti-healthcare religious nutjobs...

Well, we don't have to tell us that, you guys pretty much say it loud and proud.

It is the parents' failed responsibility to teach responsibility. Simply saying that on an anonymous forum isn't going to help anything. We've been on this downward spiral for about fifty years. The problems are now systemic. What needs to be done is action. Buy condoms for the kiddies. Vote for socialist healthcare and educational reform. Something other than sitting on our collective asses just watching the foundations crack.

Guy, you need to get a reality check. The teen pregnancy rate has dropped over the last 20 years. So has the number of abortions performed (but that might be because women can now get morning after pills)

The problem is not the "Parents". It's people making decision, sometimes bad ones. I knew a girl when I was in the service who dated one of my fellow NCO's. The guy was a jerk, but she was keen on getting him to make good on his promise to marry her. So she "forgot" to take her birth control pills, and he dumped her like a bad habit when she got knocked up.

A year later, they got back together, and the same thing happened.

(Their whole relationship was a nasty game of manipulating each other and everyone around them.)

Can;t really blame the parents. the Parents were very strict, Catholic and Asian. In fact, part of her reasoning to get the abortions was that her parents really thought she was still a virgin at 22.

 

[Coyote]

Since I am not in this game, im just sloppy I suppose. But from where I sit, the zealots on one side would have abortions AFTER delivery, and the zealots on the other side include those who believe that just masturbating is interfering with reproduction. Or condoms. So I take digs at both. Your pro choice side has been mooved off their original insane positions on choice to actually THINK about partial birth or parental consent or late term abortions. That train DID start out from the station as a pro abort train. ?.. this slow motion train wreck called the abortion debate has changed the shape of both sides in a slow and painful way.

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abort. From where I sit - it seems like you are labeling all of us pro-abort. I know of few - very few, who support unlimited abortion in the third trimester and no one who supports abortion after delivery. It's like the pro-some-life crowd - and claiming they support a woman dying over terminating a pregnancy or they don't even support abortion in incest or rape. Those views are more extreme end of the spectrum and unfortunately the more extreme end has the louder voice. And that louder voice is attempting to portray the majority of abortions as "late term" through false imagery, etc to generate an anti-abortion backlash. And that is just plain wrong too.

This has been one of better "abortion" threads I've ever been in. Largely because the topic ain't about all the usual arguments of "viability" or conditions on abortions like you mentioned. It cuts to the issue of the dignity and respect for the procedure. That it entails ending a life.

My wife, about 25 years ago, went for a 2nd ultrasound at 15 weeks, and I begged out because I had been there for the previous one. She had to endure looking at a fully formed fetus with no brain and drive home alone.. Anencephaly. And she had a D & C procedure within days. I know folks who had full funerals for full term still borns and miscarriages. And this little journalistic episode taps into those moral issues of the responsibility of REALIZING what an a abortion is.

Which brings me to your issue with me -- and my choice of terms for the different sides. Of course -- I can use all those terms for the players. But if anyone doesn't feel violated by the callousness and unprofessional medical detachment of these PP doctors -- I would insist that THEY are pro-Aborts. Folks who have no clue of the sensitivity required to discuss abortion and politics in the same breath..

If you can't respect that you are advocating for ending a life without some feeling attached -- you ARE a zealot fringe. And if you CAN -- you can work with the vast middle to make abortion rarer and more dignified. Learned a lot in this thread about "de-sensitizing" the topic. We get farther if we all agree to treat it with respect.

When you argue about viability, with the definition centering around survival OUTSIDE the womb, you already lost that sensitivity. Because that little baby fetus is PERFECTLY "viable" where it is -- til you end it...

I am sorry, for what happened with you and your wife - that is probably one of the hardest things to have happen you are expecting a child

I know that I am sometimes flippant about this but I fully realize what abortion is.

I am not going to go into details and probably even talking about this will open me up to a shitload of crap from some folks here but years ago I had an abortion and yes, it was by choice. I was young, stupid, pregnant and in a poor place to be a parent and I was terrified. My boyfriend adamently did not want fatherhood. My experience with PP at the time was hardly callous - we talked about options, what an abortion entailed, how I felt about it, how I felt about parenthood. I was given time to back out if I wanted and encouraged to talk with friends or family if I needed to. It was also blessedly non-judgemental. I think I would have fallen apart then if I had been accused of being a "baby killer" or such. Afterwards, they helped to decide what birth control would be best and set me up with it (I could not afford to see a regular doctor and pay for it at the time). My experience with PP was very postiive. The experience was as positive as something that horrible can be and I was fully aware of what it entailed. Yes - it IS a blob of cells at that point, but it is a blob of cells that has the potential to become a human being. Life is unique and precious.

Then, you have people here using this doctor and what are essentially private conversations to broadbrush the entire practice. I don't think that is right either. Every group has it's outliers and to portray them as the norm in order to destroy something has done and still does huge amounts of good for women's health at a very low cost seems wrong to me.

The problem with arguing about viability - or refusing to argue about is this - how can you justify abortion? How can you say a woman has the right to terminate? And at what point? When does the baby's right supercede hers to end it?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Then, you have people here using this doctor and what are essentially private conversations to broadbrush the entire practice. I don't think that is right either. Every group has it's outliers and to portray them as the norm in order to destroy something has done and still does huge amounts of good for women's health at a very low cost seems wrong to me.

The organization's senior director of medical services is an outlier?

 

[Coyote]

Then, you have people here using this doctor and what are essentially private conversations to broadbrush the entire practice. I don't think that is right either. Every group has it's outliers and to portray them as the norm in order to destroy something has done and still does huge amounts of good for women's health at a very low cost seems wrong to me.

The organization's senior director of medical services is an outlier?

She's one person.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

She's one person.

And the president, Cecile Richards, makes two. You wouldn't think she'd have risen that high or be sent to negotiate with potential clients if she were completely off base and not knowledgeable and representative of the organization's policies.

 

[Coyote]

She's one person.

And the president, Cecile Richards, makes two. You wouldn't think she'd have risen that high or be sent to negotiate with potential clients if she were completely off base and not knowledgeable and representative of the organization's policies.

And what exactly did she do wrong?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Guy, the problem with comparing abortion to slavery is that Slavery only worked because you had an entire instutionalized system supporting it, including the hunting down of fugitive slaves and returning them to their owners.

Guy, your "guy" thing reminded me that you're the one I ignored a long time ago for insisting that thinking members of ISIS are Muslim is racist. Anyway, guy, are you seriously arguing that there isn't an institutionalized abortion industry in this country?

Abortion only requires the woman to decide she doesn't want to be pregnant. Sometimes a doctor needs to be involved, but not always.

Guy, or her boyfriend, husband, or pimp to decide. Guy, or she does want to be pregnant and just can't afford it. Guy, or... Giuy, yeah, that's kind of a no-go.

The delusion you guys on the anti-choice right have is that before Roe, no one was having abortions. the fact is, there were probably just as many abortions performed in 1972 as there were in 1974. It's just the doctors performed them and wrote something else down on the charts.

Guy, we understand that there were abortions being performed before Roe made what she acknowledges was the worst mistake of her life in helping you people. Guy, we understand (probably more than most) just how rife blatant profiteering and disregard for ethics is in the medical sector. Guy, that doesn't change our view on it. Guy, relatedly, our understanding that slavery still exists despite being legal doesn't see us looking to make it "safe,l legal, and rare".

If you want a better constitutional comparison, the better one would be Prohibition, where some religious nuts talked the country into banning alcohol using specious reasoning, but people ignored the law and kept on drinking until we all had a bought of good sense and overturned the bad law.

Guy, drinking alcohol (when not pregnant) has no direct affect on anyone else but yourself. Guy, drinking one glass of beer isn't going to kill your child. Guy, there's a difference between something that gets you pleasantly buzzed and something that turns you into a bloodstain in pan.

Well, that would depend. Has my black neighbor taken up residence inside my body for nine months? If he has, then I'd probably have good reason to want to get him out of there unless I was into that sort of thing. The fact is, as long as it's inside her body, it IS her choice, no matter what the law is.

Guy, I'm pretty sure you didn't physically implant him inside yourself.

Well, we don't have to tell us that, you guys pretty much say it loud and proud.

Guy, I literally buy condoms to pass around to people. Guy, I'm completely supportive of all measures to provide real healthcare to people. Guy, I'm an atheist. Guy, I'm still against ripping apart babies and selling them for human experimentation. Guy, I guess I'm just a nutjob like that. 25% is still passing.

Guy, you need to get a reality check. The teen pregnancy rate has dropped over the last 20 years. So has the number of abortions performed (but that might be because women can now get morning after pills)

Guy, the fertility rate has dropped and it's still going. Guy, teenagers aren't getting pregnant just like nobody else is getting pregnant. Guy, you do realize we're just barely pushing replacement level across the board, right?

The problem is not the "Parents". It's people making decision, sometimes bad ones. I knew a girl when I was in the service who dated one of my fellow NCO's. The guy was a jerk, but she was keen on getting him to make good on his promise to marry her. So she "forgot" to take her birth control pills, and he dumped her like a bad habit when she got knocked up.

Guy, the thing is, that reflects more on your shitty NCO. Guy, it's also evidence of why we need a better structure and culture in place for single mothers. Guy, that kind of thing is always going to happen. Guy, it always has, and human nature hasn't changed much in the last 20,000 years. Guy, the difference is that now we understand (or at least should understand) better and more empathetic ways of handling it.

Can;t really blame the parents. the Parents were very strict, Catholic and Asian. In fact, part of her reasoning to get the abortions was that her parents really thought she was still a virgin at 22.

Guy, that's the problem with our culture. Guy, we see virginity as something important to a woman's identity - as "proof" that she's "pure". Guy, this is exactly why we need a pro-life, pro-human, pro-sex dialogue. Guy, this is why we need things like free and abundant contraception, free and no questions asked sterilization, a strong welfare state, and an unfucked adoption system. Guy, these are the exact things I fight with my fellow pro-lifers about all the time - they don't see that it really is an either/or thing.

 

[EverCurious]

So basically even though I posted the reasoning of Roe vs Wade so you could educate yourself about the legal and moral implications in that ruling, you choose to continue to believe, in defiance of not only the highest courts ruling on the matter, but that of over half the state and district courts, and also the vast majority of the medical community that the argument is not "a clump of cells" but rather "viability"?

Our forebears didn't give a damn what the highest court in the land said about Dred Scott v. Sanford. They didn't care what approximately half the states and most of the religious institutions said. They knew their peculiar institution was a flagrant abuse of basic human rights and were willing to start a ******* war over it. We know our own peculiar institution is a flagrant abuse of human rights and, while any sort of violent conflict would be entirely contrary to our goal of protecting children from you, we are never going to give up until we have our own 13th Amendment.

Welp all I can say is good luck to you then. Neither science nor the law support the idea that life begins at conception and I dare say the majority of American's believe it is the woman's right.

It is a woman's choice until the potential life is viable. You want to believe life starts at conception, that is, of course, your right. However, others do /not/ believe that, and that is /their/ right as well. Same shit with homosexuality being "icky", and that is why abortion (at least in the first trimester) will almost undoubtedly never be illegal (unless we get another zealot in the oval office with a pen and a phone heh)

It's not your choice as a woman to murder your husband's child any more than it's your choice as a white person to murder your black neighbor.

So if the father agrees it's alright then? I would be willing to add something that a proven father has a right in the decision. (Of course, I'm guessing that in the vast majority of cases the father is a) already on board or b) already abandoned the girl so they're not going to say no.) We have the technology currently to do two types of paternal testing in the first trimester.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity (NIPP): A non-invasive prenatal paternity test is the most accurate non-invasive way to establish paternity before the baby is born. The process is state-of-the-art, combining the latest technology and proprietary methods of preserving and analyzing the baby’s DNA found naturally in the mother’s bloodstream. This test requires only a simple blood collection from the mother and alleged father and can be performed any time after the 8th week of pregnancy. The test is 99.9% accurate.

and

Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS): This test consists of a thin needle or tube which a doctor inserts from the vagina, through the cervix, guided by an ultrasound, to obtain chorionic villi. Chorionic villi are little finger-like pieces of tissue attached to the wall of the uterus. The chorionic villi and the fetus come from the same fertilized egg, and have the same genetic makeup. This testing can be done earlier in pregnancy from the 10th-13th weeks. A doctor’s consent is needed to do this procedure for paternity testing.

However, I think such a thing would be at a) the expense of an immediate filing of something similar to child support upon the proven abortion blocking father, regardless of relationship status with the mother; this includes ALL medical costs, pre-natal, birth, etc., in addition it should include some compensation for the mother's physical needs in bearing the child (similar to the cost of a surrogate mother's compensation perhaps.) In addition the mother should be given /some/ compensation for any "side effects" like if she looses her job because she had to take leave, or if she doesn't have paid maternity leave kind of thing, then he should pay some kind of temporary alimony or something like that. Child visitation/custody should immediately be filed for and heard by the court /during/ the pregnancy; if the father wanted the kido and the mother did not then he should be given full custody and the mothers parental rights terminated so that she is not obligated by child support.

Similarly I believe that proven fathers should have the same rights if /they/ desired the child to be aborted but the mother did not. Though we'd have to have a serious discussion about any financial obligations the father might have to dissuade abuse. At present, regardless if the father wanted the child (as it is often the woman lies to the boyfriend saying she's on birth control when she is not) the father is then tagged for 18 years of child support as "punishment" for not "marrying" her. (By her choice alone I might add) I've always felt there should be a better balance of that common trap.

That said, I do agree, abortion is not a solution for wanton behavior, but that is, in my opinion, another failing of the church's touch upon this country; pushing that abstinence is the only solution, when we /all/ know that isn't going to happen. What we need to do is encourage not only contraceptive use, but also put some money into funding say condom design; like cheapening the cost of using materials that would both protect from pregnancy and STD's, and do so without the loss of feeling that is associated with people /not/ using them.

There's a reason you have to fall back on telling yourself we're all condom-hating, anti-healthcare religious nutjobs...

I employ science and personal belief's just as much as the religious employ religious and personal beliefs so I'm not exactly sure why you read "religious nutjobs" into my statement. History reflects that the church is the one who forwarded the policy of teaching abstinence as birth control in this country, are you saying someone else did as well/instead? Please give me some links so I can further research these supposed non-religious abstinence pushers.

It is unfortunate, but other factors of unwanted pregnancy cannot be altered so easily; drinking, not having a condom and doing it anyway, or my personal least favorite the all too common women's entrapment method. I lay that on the parents, it is their damn job to teach their kids not to be morons, but welcome to the new America where no one is responsible and everyone is a winner no matter how bad they do. It has nothing to do with degeneracy though, it is a complete dismissal of personal responsibility. Unfortunately, why work hard when you can do nothing and survive? The socialists have taken over and there is no way to get rid of them once they get settled in, once they get the votes. Smart move on their part really. It is what the people want, and no matter how much one disagrees, part of being in this country is realizing that the majority rules - if you don't like it, move.

It is the parents' failed responsibility to teach responsibility. Simply saying that on an anonymous forum isn't going to help anything. We've been on this downward spiral for about fifty years. The problems are now systemic. What needs to be done is action. Buy condoms for the kiddies. Vote for socialist healthcare and educational reform. Something other than sitting on our collective asses just watching the foundations crack.

Yes well, again the church is generally the one who stands against putting free condoms in schools are they not? (I'm fine to add in your supposed non-religious pushers in here as well.)

I find it interesting that your solution to a policy of non-responsibility is a socialist agenda... Considering that a lot of socialism relies on no one taking care of themselves... I personally find that socialist flavored policies are what /caused/ the "downward spiral" of self-responsibility in the first place. Still, I'm afraid I personally will not rebel against the majority of the USA, it is their country just as much as it is mine, and it is the very principle of her foundation. While I may mourn her changing, I will not "fight" what the majority wishes for her, other than with my vote, because this is what her people want. I love the "idea" of America, not what she has become; but she is not mine alone...

I'd wanted to be a politician when I was younger but I found I couldn't deal with the hatred that abounds in this country. Funny how it doesn't change much from HS to adulthood; the hate is just as strong, just as unreasonable, and just as stupid for co-existence. There is zero desire for unity in this country, only a desire to forward one side or the other, there is no middle ground, there is no compromise, there is nothing for me personally to "forward" or "accomplish." I'm too even keeled, too middle of the road, to much a balancer of everything to have any chance in politics. So yea, I'm "just" on a forum board saying shit, trying to inform others, and analyzing the other side's opinions, "just" teaching my kids what /I/ believe in, and "just" living my life. I'm afraid my desire to be a "hero" died a long time ago when I lost... empathy for the stupid selfish greedy majority of the people of this country, on both sides of the political fence.

 

[peach174]

Scientist's say that life does begin at conception.
Scientists Attest To Life Beginning At Conception - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries
Some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo s Conception

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Welp all I can say is good luck to you then. Neither science nor the law support the idea that life begins at conception and I dare say the majority of American's believe it is the woman's right.

Well, you're partially right. Science does say that non-human life begins at conception. Human life doesn't, though, because Roe v. Wade ruled that it doesn't and we've built our abortion laws around that fact. The majority of Americans believing it is just further proof that this is the case. Thank you for teaching these dumbasses how real science works.

It is a woman's choice until the potential life is viable. You want to believe life starts at conception, that is, of course, your right. However, others do /not/ believe that, and that is /their/ right as well. Same shit with homosexuality being "icky", and that is why abortion (at least in the first trimester) will almost undoubtedly never be illegal (unless we get another zealot in the oval office with a pen and a phone heh)

It's not your choice as a woman to murder your husband's child any more than it's your choice as a white person to murder your black neighbor.

So if the father agrees it's alright then? I would be willing to add something that a proven father has a right in the decision. (Of course, I'm guessing that in the vast majority of cases the father is a) already on board or b) already abandoned the girl so they're not going to say no.) We have the technology currently to do two types of paternal testing in the first trimester.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity (NIPP): A non-invasive prenatal paternity test is the most accurate non-invasive way to establish paternity before the baby is born. The process is state-of-the-art, combining the latest technology and proprietary methods of preserving and analyzing the baby’s DNA found naturally in the mother’s bloodstream. This test requires only a simple blood collection from the mother and alleged father and can be performed any time after the 8th week of pregnancy. The test is 99.9% accurate.

and

Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS): This test consists of a thin needle or tube which a doctor inserts from the vagina, through the cervix, guided by an ultrasound, to obtain chorionic villi. Chorionic villi are little finger-like pieces of tissue attached to the wall of the uterus. The chorionic villi and the fetus come from the same fertilized egg, and have the same genetic makeup. This testing can be done earlier in pregnancy from the 10th-13th weeks. A doctor’s consent is needed to do this procedure for paternity testing.

However, I think such a thing would be at a) the expense of an immediate filing of something similar to child support upon the proven abortion blocking father, regardless of relationship status with the mother; this includes ALL medical costs, pre-natal, birth, etc., in addition it should include some compensation for the mother's physical needs in bearing the child (similar to the cost of a surrogate mother's compensation perhaps.) In addition the mother should be given /some/ compensation for any "side effects" like if she looses her job because she had to take leave, or if she doesn't have paid maternity leave kind of thing, then he should pay some kind of temporary alimony or something like that. Child visitation/custody should immediately be filed for and heard by the court /during/ the pregnancy; if the father wanted the kido and the mother did not then he should be given full custody and the mothers parental rights terminated so that she is not obligated by child support.

Similarly I believe that proven fathers should have the same rights if /they/ desired the child to be aborted but the mother did not. Though we'd have to have a serious discussion about any financial obligations the father might have to dissuade abuse. At present, regardless if the father wanted the child (as it is often the woman lies to the boyfriend saying she's on birth control when she is not) the father is then tagged for 18 years of child support as "punishment" for not "marrying" her. (By her choice alone I might add) I've always felt there should be a better balance of that common trap.

How did you get that from what I said? I'm genuinely confused. Being against it doesn't mean being for it if the biologically proven father is for it.

I employ science and personal belief's just as much as the religious employ religious and personal beliefs so I'm not exactly sure why you read "religious nutjobs" into my statement. History reflects that the church is the one who forwarded the policy of teaching abstinence as birth control in this country, are you saying someone else did as well/instead? Please give me some links so I can further research these supposed non-religious abstinence pushers.

Being anti-abortion has nothing to do with "pushing abstinence" on people. I suspect you got that from the pro-choice claim that people who don't make their choice just hate women and want to control them sexually. By all means, sleep with whomever you want, as much as you want. All I'm asking is that you take appropriate measures to protect yourself and everyone else from diseases and unwanted pregnancy. The last thing that needs to happen is some fatal STI to start spreading or babies to die just because people were looking to ****. I've expressed on here before that I'm totally willing to send pro-choicers money for birth control myself if they can't or don't want to buy it for themselves. That offer is still open.

Yes well, again the church is generally the one who stands against putting free condoms in schools are they not? (I'm fine to add in your supposed non-religious pushers in here as well.)

The Catholic Church is one of the biggest backwards forces standing against providing adolescents access to contraception. I fight them on this all the time. They're literally just hurting my cause of making sure every conceived baby is a wanted baby and shooting both of us in the foot by creating a market for your abortion industry. That's what happens when you take marching orders from a silly little man in a dress...

I find it interesting that your solution to a policy of non-responsibility is a socialist agenda... Considering that a lot of socialism relies on no one taking care of themselves... I personally find that socialist flavored policies are what /caused/ the "downward spiral" of self-responsibility in the first place. Still, I'm afraid I personally will not rebel against the majority of the USA, it is their country just as much as it is mine, and it is the very principle of her foundation. While I may mourn her changing, I will not "fight" what the majority wishes for her, other than with my vote, because this is what her people want. I love the "idea" of America, not what she has become; but she is not mine alone...

Socialism is what we need to begin rebuilding this country into an equitable, safe, decent place to live and raise children. It is also going to fail utterly without the general public being conscious of our interrelation. People hear "we're all family" and think it's hippy garbage. They don't step back and think and realize that, holy shit, yeah. We as a species actually are all literally one big incestuous fucked up family. Despite very few people seeing it, though, it's still very much a demonstrable truth, and that truth means means we have a hard and fast obligation to take care of one another. You wouldn't let your first cousin starve on the street. Why would you let your third? You would defend your unborn sister, so why not your third unborn niece? That realization is ultimately my motivation here. That's what drives me. It has nothing to do with any bullshit religion. It has everything to do with the fact that, like it or not, you might be a stranger but you're still my blood relative and I have an obligation to see that you're at least provided with the basic needs in life. That means safety, food, shelter, proper medicine... The Socialist Agenda(tm).

I'd wanted to be a politician when I was younger but I found I couldn't deal with the hatred that abounds in this country. Funny how it doesn't change much from HS to adulthood; the hate is just as strong, just as unreasonable, and just as stupid for co-existence. There is zero desire for unity in this country, only a desire to forward one side or the other, there is no middle ground, there is no compromise, there is nothing for me personally to "forward" or "accomplish." I'm too even keeled, too middle of the road, to much a balancer of everything to have any chance in politics. So yea, I'm "just" on a forum board saying shit, trying to inform others, and analyzing the other side's opinions, "just" teaching my kids what /I/ believe in, and "just" living my life. I'm afraid my desire to be a "hero" died a long time ago when I lost... empathy for the stupid selfish greedy majority of the people of this country, on both sides of the political fence.

That larger goal of unity is exactly what I have in mind. That's what we should be fighting for: those stupid, selfish greedy people that are our cousins and nieces and nephews who just happen to be too far enough removed from each other to be out of sight, out of mind.

 

[hadit]

What's stupid about that is that those same conservatives will fight tooth and nail to grant you the same protection after you are born that they want to give you before you are born. They want to protect you from being cut to pieces with a saw after you are born too.

 

[hadit]

Scientist's say that life does begin at conception.
Scientists Attest To Life Beginning At Conception - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries
Some of the world’s most prominent scientists and physicians testified to a U.S. Senate committee that human life begins at conception:
Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo s Conception

Liberals insist that science must rule in every arena, except abortion. There, emotion must rule.

 

[Coyote]

What's stupid about that is that those same conservatives will fight tooth and nail to grant you the same protection after you are born that they want to give you before you are born. They want to protect you from being cut to pieces with a saw after you are born too.

They don't give a damn about you after you're born - your mother get's labeled a slut and a parisite on the welfare system. You're too busy defunding programs that help mothers and children.

 

[Carla_Danger]

She's one person.

And the president, Cecile Richards, makes two. You wouldn't think she'd have risen that high or be sent to negotiate with potential clients if she were completely off base and not knowledgeable and representative of the organization's policies.

And what exactly did she do wrong?

Pedro has been asked that question repeatedly on another thread and refuses to answer. Don't hold your breath for an answer on this thread.

 

[hadit]

What's stupid about that is that those same conservatives will fight tooth and nail to grant you the same protection after you are born that they want to give you before you are born. They want to protect you from being cut to pieces with a saw after you are born too.

They don't give a damn about you after you're born - your mother get's labeled a slut and a parisite on the welfare system. You're too busy defunding programs that help mothers and children.

Take a saw to a baby after he/she has been born and see what conservatives do to you.

 

[Coyote]

What's stupid about that is that those same conservatives will fight tooth and nail to grant you the same protection after you are born that they want to give you before you are born. They want to protect you from being cut to pieces with a saw after you are born too.

They don't give a damn about you after you're born - your mother get's labeled a slut and a parisite on the welfare system. You're too busy defunding programs that help mothers and children.

Take a saw to a baby after he/she has been born and see what conservatives do to you.

The same thing Liberals will do.

 

[Ernie S.]

Tissue is being exchanged, money is changing hands. All PP has to show is that the $$ covered costs, and only covered costs, and they are free and clear.

If they can't, and it shows they charged more than it cost them, wouldn't you agree that that would be "profiting" from the transaction, and that would make the transaction illegal?

They would also have to justify why they charge more for some "tissues" than for others, given that they have a fixed cost.

It was the phony "buyers" trying to invent a "fee scale for parts".

OMG -- Journalists posing as buyers... What respecting news agency would EVER pull a "stunt" like that? Or for that matter, what documentary prizes should EVER be given for "undercover journalism"....

I'm SHOCKED...... And you're a hypocrit... Get over it.. The story IS what it is...

Now they have been promoted to "journalists"?

But I gather you must now be all in favor of the NSA secretly wiretapping all of your calls, right?

After all you so support this secret taping of PP, right?

So that makes the NSA secretly wiretapping your phone acceptable by your own standards?

Because if it isn't then I would hate to have to call you the "H-word".

But let's put that aside and deal with the actual dishonesty that is occurring in these videos.

You know, the part where you are being deceived by these phony "buyers" into believing that PP is breaking the law.

Shall we have a substantive discussion on the fact that is not happening in reality?

Or is your mind already closed on that subject?

I knew you were stupid, but wow....

You don't even know the difference between a government and a private organization.

But Woodward and Bernstein were heroes for bringing down that bastard Richard Nixon