I would view aborting a viable baby as murder.

That question is the meat of the matter. Do pro-abortion groups ever answer that question. I think everyone would agree that the morning after pill is fine maybe even the month after pill. Its the hard line question that is avoided because of the anti-abortion label.

(07-30-2015, 02:29 PM)Maggot Wrote: Abortion after 24 months is wrong I think after 18 months its wrong even earlier. I suppose that abortions are done mostly on colored people but its still not right. Selling body parts is very immoral and that video was hard to watch. I believe in women rights but there is a limit.
Planned parenthood does some good things but they are wrong on a bunch of things also. This is just wrong.

http://prospect.org/article/demographics...-you-think

And i'm really struggling to understand what the moral issue is here. If these parts of dead babies can be used to someday save the life of your child or grandchild, I would say it's more of a moral issue to use the parts as landfill and let the children die.

(07-30-2015, 04:33 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(07-30-2015, 02:29 PM)Maggot Wrote: Abortion after 24 months is wrong I think after 18 months its wrong even earlier. I suppose that abortions are done mostly on colored people but its still not right. Selling body parts is very immoral and that video was hard to watch. I believe in women rights but there is a limit.
Planned parenthood does some good things but they are wrong on a bunch of things also. This is just wrong.

http://prospect.org/article/demographics...-you-think

And i'm really struggling to understand what the moral issue is here. If these parts of dead babies can be used to someday save the life of your child or grandchild, I would say it's more of a moral issue to use the parts as landfill and let the children die.

I guess that argument would be as good as euthanizing old people for their body parts but who the hell wants parts that might quit on you once in anyways.
The issue is aborting babies that could live outside the womb. Where is the line, this baby is worth more than that one?

There will come a time when parts are grown anyways. But until then the brains are still attached today.

(07-30-2015, 04:37 PM)Maggot Wrote:

(07-30-2015, 04:33 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(07-30-2015, 02:29 PM)Maggot Wrote: Abortion after 24 months is wrong I think after 18 months its wrong even earlier. I suppose that abortions are done mostly on colored people but its still not right. Selling body parts is very immoral and that video was hard to watch. I believe in women rights but there is a limit.
Planned parenthood does some good things but they are wrong on a bunch of things also. This is just wrong.

http://prospect.org/article/demographics...-you-think

And i'm really struggling to understand what the moral issue is here. If these parts of dead babies can be used to someday save the life of your child or grandchild, I would say it's more of a moral issue to use the parts as landfill and let the children die.

I guess that argument would be as good as euthanizing old people for their body parts but who the hell wants parts that might quit on you once in anyways.
The issue is aborting babies that could live outside the womb. Where is the line, this baby is worth more than that one?

There will come a time when parts are grown anyways. But until then the brains are still attached today.

That is illegal per the CFR's on human tissue. What PP is doing is selling their medical waste for research as opposed to paying to have it microwaved and used as land fill. HUGE difference between selling waste and harvesting tissue.

(07-30-2015, 04:37 PM)Maggot Wrote:

(07-30-2015, 04:33 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(07-30-2015, 02:29 PM)Maggot Wrote: Abortion after 24 months is wrong I think after 18 months its wrong even earlier. I suppose that abortions are done mostly on colored people but its still not right. Selling body parts is very immoral and that video was hard to watch. I believe in women rights but there is a limit.
Planned parenthood does some good things but they are wrong on a bunch of things also. This is just wrong.

http://prospect.org/article/demographics...-you-think

And i'm really struggling to understand what the moral issue is here. If these parts of dead babies can be used to someday save the life of your child or grandchild, I would say it's more of a moral issue to use the parts as landfill and let the children die.

I guess that argument would be as good as euthanizing old people for their body parts but who the hell wants parts that might quit on you once in anyways.
The issue is aborting babies that could live outside the womb. Where is the line, this baby is worth more than that one?

I do not think it's the same as euthanizing old people.

The embryos and fetuses containing the stem cells are going to be aborted anyway. Better they be used to potentially save other lives than discarded as waste, IMO. I agree with Gunnar.

I understand and respect that some people have a moral issue with birth control, and/or with early or mid term abortion, and/or with late term abortion.

I do not understand why anyone would have a moral issue with aborted embryos and fetuses being sold for medical benefit rather than discarded.

The doctors involved are aborting in such a way to allow them to harvest stem cells in specific organs, which is what is being very casually discussed in the undercover videos. I find the casualness of the discussion distasteful, but I'm glad the stem cells are not going to waste and may save lives.

Having said that, if it turns out that any abortion regulations/ laws were broken, I fully support charging and prosecuting the offending bitches. If it turns out that Planned Parenthood has been deceptive about the profitability of stem cell sales, rake the offenders over the coals and affect greater transparency or charge them with financial crimes (if applicable).

(07-30-2015, 05:02 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(07-30-2015, 04:37 PM)Maggot Wrote:

(07-30-2015, 04:33 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(07-30-2015, 02:29 PM)Maggot Wrote: Abortion after 24 months is wrong I think after 18 months its wrong even earlier. I suppose that abortions are done mostly on colored people but its still not right. Selling body parts is very immoral and that video was hard to watch. I believe in women rights but there is a limit.
Planned parenthood does some good things but they are wrong on a bunch of things also. This is just wrong.

http://prospect.org/article/demographics...-you-think

And i'm really struggling to understand what the moral issue is here. If these parts of dead babies can be used to someday save the life of your child or grandchild, I would say it's more of a moral issue to use the parts as landfill and let the children die.

I guess that argument would be as good as euthanizing old people for their body parts but who the hell wants parts that might quit on you once in anyways.
The issue is aborting babies that could live outside the womb. Where is the line, this baby is worth more than that one?

I do not think it's the same as euthanizing old people.

The embryos and fetuses containing the stem cells are going to be aborted anyway. Better they be used to potentially save other lives than discarded as waste, IMO. I agree with Gunnar.

I understand and respect that some people have a moral issue with birth control, and/or with early or mid term abortion, and/or with late term abortion.

I do not understand why anyone would have a moral issue with aborted embryos and fetuses being sold for medical benefit rather than discarded.

The doctors involved are aborting in such a way to allow them to harvest stem cells in specific organs, which is what is being very casually discussed in the undercover videos. I find the casualness of the discussion distasteful, but I'm glad the stem cells are not going to waste and may save lives.

Having said that, if it turns out that any abortion regulations/ laws were broken, I fully support charging and prosecuting the offending bitches. If it turns out that Planned Parenthood has been deceptive about the profitability of stem cell sales, rake the offenders over the coals and affect greater transparency or charge them with financial crimes (if applicable).

I'd agree with you a lot more often Gunnar, if only you'd be right a lot more often.

(07-30-2015, 06:36 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I'd agree with you a lot more often Gunnar, if only you'd be right a lot more often.

Did you just call me fat?

^ What?

See, you've already gone back to being completely incomprehensible.

Ah well, it was nice bonding with you for a brief moment in time there Jabba.

Carrying over from the Trivial Drivel thread.

(07-31-2015, 06:50 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(07-31-2015, 06:31 PM)sally Wrote: Yep, everyday unethical business for them. Do you think they're donating the tissue out of the goodness of their hearts?

They're not trying to make millions off of it.

(07-31-2015, 07:20 PM)sally Wrote: I don't believe it. You have that at your hands and you're not going to take up the opportunity to make millions off it? You're already performing late term abortions, I think your standards would be questionable.

It would be foolish for PP to break the law by looking to profit from selling stem cell tissue. They could be put out of business.

Despite what anti-abortion politicians and groups claim, there's nothing in the full unedited video that points in that direction.

In fact, the director says several times that money/profit isn't the issue; the participating clinics are just looking to cover their costs.

The prices discussed in the sting video, in an admittedly casual manner over lunch, are to cover the costs of transporting, handling, etc of the tissue; the tissue which some of their patients elect to donate to medical research. The same tissue that some doctors try to preserve while performing the abortions, which is also discussed in the videos. Unbiased sources have confirmed that the prices discussed are in line with average reimbursement costs for such donations. Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinn...ood-video/

Just over 1% of abortions are late-term (after 21 weeks). The donation of fetal tissue for stem cell research is not a late-term abortion issue. By far, most fetal tissue is a by-product of early and mid term abortions. And, white women account for the highest racial percentage of the approximately 1 million abortions performed every year in the U.S. (not that it's relevant, just to correct a statement made upthread.) Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html



I don't like late-term abortions either, but I'd rather see the fetal tissue go to stem cell research than in a waste bin.

If PP, which is always under close scrutiny and threat by anti-abortionists, is making millions in illegal commerce-for-profit of stem cell tissue, I'll be very surprised.

They have a legal council behind them, breaking the law is easy to do when you know how to do it. I have no doubt that they're profiting from it.

It's a business like any other, and no one does shit for chump change.

(07-31-2015, 09:46 PM)sally Wrote: They have a legal council behind them, breaking the law is easy to do when you know how to do it. I have no doubt that they're profiting from it.

It's a business like any other, and no one does shit for chump change.

I haven't seen any evidence of that, and the repercussions of such illegal activity would be disastrous to the organization. Also, their legal council would be disbarred if caught advising clients on how to break the law.

Planned Parenthood is one of the most scrutinized and targeted organizations by conservative and religious politicians/groups in the country. They're not like a private for-profit company; anti-abortionists are always looking for ways to shut them down and pushing to cut off funding for the health care and planning services they provide because they also perform legal abortions.

I'm not ready to accuse PP of breaking the law just because I don't like late term-abortions and some powerful people with an agenda are making unsubstantiated insinuations. Some people and organizations do in fact donate and only look to cover their costs and get tax write-offs.

If you're right though and PP has broken the law sal, IMO they'll be caught -- they've got big guns with big power and money constantly aimed at them. I think it would be fairly easy to determine how much money the participating clinics have made, if any. Those tissues are sold to the same middlemen used by hospitals that donate tissues from umbilical chords and such, and the reimbursement costs should be in the same general ballpark (which has been confirmed to be the case, at least for the prices quoted in the undercover anti-abortionist filmed videos).

We'll see.

How much does planned parenthood net per year?

When a business is making that much money the laws are in their favor.

I read it was 164 million. That's called corporate America you naïve little tulip.

You're not making sense, rose petal.

Many lawmakers despise Planned Parenthood and want to take them down because those lawmakers oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds.

Anyway, Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization. It receives funding from the federal government for non-abortion services and through donations. Its budget is $1 billion per year and they service around 5 million people annually.

Here's a breakdown (as a not-for-profit organization, they're audited and records are public):
2009 records indicate that Planned Parenthood provided 4,009,549 contraceptive services (35% of total), 3,955,926 sexually transmitted disease services (35% of total), 1,830,811 cancer related services (16% of total), 1,178,369 pregnancy/prenatal/midlife services (10% of total), 332,278 abortion services (3% of total), and 76,977 other services (1% of total), for a total of 11,383,900 services. At the same time, 1 million screenings for cervical cancer and 830,000 breast exams were performed by PP doctors and nurses.

Like I said, I'll be surprised if stem cell commerce laws were actually broken and this turns out to be more than just another attempt by anti-abortionists to give conservative politicians a current platform upon which to rally against abortion (and put the country's largest women's services/birth control and abortion provider out of business).

The videos don't show any evidence of illegality, as far as I can see. Republican politicians were shown the videos a month before the edited ones were released to the public. And, no charges have been filed. BUT, House Republicans have used the videos as a catalyst to launch a bill to de-fund PP. I don't think it will pass Congress. But, if it does, Obama has said he'll veto it; there's nothing illegal on the videos.

Still, some Republicans are already vowing to try to use the annual spending deadline of Sept. 30 to force the issue. They say they'll let the government shut down again rather than authorize spending bills that include money for Planned Parenthood. If they do that, and I don't doubt they will, I think it will backfire on them (again) if they don't produce evidence to back their claims.

I often feel like it's a bunch of fat, old, white men making decisions in regards to women & their health. When they talk about PP all their talk revolves around abortions instead of the immense help that is given to women in order to remain healthy. Low income females NEED the help PP gives them.

...and further more, those fuckers don't get to have their cake & eat it too. Don't take away their care (when it involves abortions) only to piss and moan about paying for those living on welfare. Granted there are those who use abortions as birth control but for the most part women who have their pregnancies aborted do so after much consideration, this isn't an easy decision nor one made on a whim.

Personally, I think every community deserves the services of PP.

How come abortion is discussed in a yes/no manner? I say that abortion is wrong in the scope of late term abortions even though I believe that 1-2 months should be the cutoff date for an abortion yet I would be classed as an anti abortion proponent. Is there no middle ground or is that so hard to agree with. PP does not distinguish and neither do politicians that say they are pro abortion or as the term is morphing into a pro women's movement.

(08-01-2015, 02:12 PM)Maggot Wrote: How come abortion is discussed in a yes/no manner? I say that abortion is wrong in the scope of late term abortions even though I believe that 1-2 months should be the cutoff date for an abortion yet I would be classed as an anti abortion proponent. Is there no middle ground or is that so hard to agree with. PP does not distinguish and neither do politicians that say they are pro abortion or as the term is morphing into a pro women's movement.

I put this in the trivial thread but I decided to put a copy in here too...

I would be willing to insert a time limit too. The ONLY issue I really have with the two month mark is that certain (critical) tests occur around week 16. Perhaps our new law (Maggot) would offer some exception when those tests indicate significant problems.

I don't give a fuck if some fat, toothless bitch didn't even realize she was pregnant until past that two month period.

I'm pro-choice...to a point.

It would be a worthwhile endeavor for scientists to figure out how they could conduct that type of screening earlier in the pregnancy. Hell, there's so much they can tell about an embryo these days...you'd think they would be able to do a lot of this testing much earlier.

(08-01-2015, 02:12 PM)Maggot Wrote: How come abortion is discussed in a yes/no manner? I say that abortion is wrong in the scope of late term abortions even though I believe that 1-2 months should be the cutoff date for an abortion yet I would be classed as an anti abortion proponent. Is there no middle ground or is that so hard to agree with. PP does not distinguish and neither do politicians that say they are pro abortion or as the term is morphing into a pro women's movement.

I haven't heard anyone say that someone who supports abortion up to 8 weeks is an "anti-abortionist". That would be contradictory.

And, I've certainly never seen pro-choice (or pro-abortion) used synonymously with "pro women's movement"; women's rights and issues extend far beyond reproduction, and the vast majority of women never have an abortion.

When I say "anti-abortionist" I mean "anti-abortionist". The politicians and groups whom I described as "anti-abortionists" do, in fact, oppose oppose ALL abortions because they consider it morally and/or religiously wrong and equate abortion at any stage to murder.

You, my friend, are simply a guy who supports a woman's right to choose up to a certain point, like Duchess, and sal, and user and a whole lot of other people that I know.