is doing more good for the pro-life movement, than anything I have seen in my lifetime. It keeps getting more and more disgusting.

Funny, the pro-abortion folks are decrying the fact that the videos were undercover. Isn't that the point, to get people to be more honest than they would be at a press conference? When someone secretly recorded Romney making a stupid statement about 47% not wanting to work, no one had any complaints about how the footage was obtained.

I'm pro choice, but I will say I was very saddened to hear what that lady had to say.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm pro choice, but I will say I was very saddened to hear what that lady had to say.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think there are multiple ladies on tape now. The callousness is something.

My bet is Congress votes to de-fund these ghouls, and Obama will veto it. He's never met an unborn baby who deserves anything other than a meat cleaver. As a state senator in Illinois, he twice blocked legislation that would have made it illegal for mothers to kill babies after they were born alive. If that sounds shocking to you, read it again, then look it up. It was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, and he worked to kill it, letting mothers continue to kill babies who were born alive, and who were outside the womb. That's our POTUS! Hooray for us.

So far I haven't seen any evidence any laws were broken, just some cold discussion of a subject that's difficult for most people to hear. The Govt budgets 76 million a year for fetal tissue research, Planned Parenthood isn't the only organization involved...

It's also worth remembering that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood's services (97%) are NOT abortion and the vast majority of those abortions are early and wouldn't likely even result in tissue available for research.

Also, Obama was pretty clear that his lack of support for the IL state BAIPA had nothing to do with limiting rights outside of the womb, it was that he didn't want the bill to be used as a political/legal tool to restrict women's rights inside the womb.

For all your ranting about cleaver wielding ghouls, the reality is more like cancer screening for poor women and new treatments for disease.

So far I haven't seen any evidence any laws were broken, just some cold discussion of a subject that's difficult for most people to hear. The Govt budgets 76 million a year for fetal tissue research, Planned Parenthood isn't the only organization involved...

It's also worth remembering that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood's services (97%) are NOT abortion and the vast majority of those abortions are early and wouldn't likely even result in tissue available for research.

Also, Obama was pretty clear that his lack of support for the IL state BAIPA had nothing to do with limiting rights outside of the womb, it was that he didn't want the bill to be used as a political/legal tool to restrict women's rights inside the womb.

For all your ranting about cleaver wielding ghouls, the reality is more like cancer screening for poor women and new treatments for disease.


nauseating beyond words....but when has Spence not defended the indefensible?.......... par for the course

nauseating beyond words....but when has Spence not defended the indefensible?.......... par for the course
Did you say something?

Did you say something?

Selective hearing. :)

So far I haven't seen any evidence any laws were broken, just some cold discussion of a subject that's difficult for most people to hear. The Govt budgets 76 million a year for fetal tissue research, Planned Parenthood isn't the only organization involved...

It's also worth remembering that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood's services (97%) are NOT abortion and the vast majority of those abortions are early and wouldn't likely even result in tissue available for research.

Also, Obama was pretty clear that his lack of support for the IL state BAIPA had nothing to do with limiting rights outside of the womb, it was that he didn't want the bill to be used as a political/legal tool to restrict women's rights inside the womb.

For all your ranting about cleaver wielding ghouls, the reality is more like cancer screening for poor women and new treatments for disease.

You don't see any evidence, because you don't (or can't, beats me) see that which doesn't support The Narrative. You don't concede ICE has any legal standing to detain illegal aliens.

And if Obama's concern about the bill was that someone could widen the scope to include abortion restrictions, why the hell didn't he write a law that made killing living babies illegal, yet kept abortion legal? He's supposed to be a somewhat talented legislator, correct? Obviously, he wasn't all that bothered by what was happening, because he did exactly zilch to stop it and at the risk of sounding like The Dad Fisherman, try making that wrong, please.

You don't see any evidence, because you don't (or can't, beats me) see that which doesn't support The Narrative. You don't concede ICE has any legal standing to detain illegal aliens.
So what's the evidence that PP is profiting from a systemic scheme to trade in fetal tissue?

ICE has the authority to detain illegal aliens, nobody ever said they don't. That's not the issue, the problem is that ICE detainers unless accompanied by a warrant are simply a request. Just because it comes from a Federal agency doesn't mean it trumps local procedures...it's a fuzzy part of the law that should be corrected with more comprehensive reform.

And if Obama's concern about the bill was that someone could widen the scope to include abortion restrictions, why the hell didn't he write a law that made killing living babies illegal, yet kept abortion legal? He's supposed to be a somewhat talented legislator, correct? Obviously, he wasn't all that bothered by what was happening, because he did exactly zilch to stop it and at the risk of sounding like The Dad Fisherman, try making that wrong, please.
Is this even a big problem to begin with or just politically motivated legislation?

The irony of all this outrage is that if conservatives are successful in de-funding Planned Parenthood the number of abortions in the country is going to skyrocket...

So what's the evidence that PP is profiting from a systemic scheme to trade in fetal tissue?

.


Makes no difference whether they are making a profit or not, it's just plain inhuman and wrong.

Makes no difference whether they are making a profit or not, it's just plain inhuman and wrong.
Well, it makes a big difference under the law. If there's scientific gain and enough control to prevent abuse then I wouldn't say it's inhuman and wrong, but it certainly falls into an ethical gray area that should be taken very seriously.

But if you're pro-life the argument is moot anyway.

So far I haven't seen any evidence any laws were broken, .

Again, what you see, tends to depend upon the issue you are advocating.

Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

Tell me that the videos don't suggest that this federal law was broken.

excellent article http://www.nationalreview.com/node/422048/print

Again, what you see, tends to depend upon the issue you are advocating.

Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

Tell me that the videos don't suggest that this federal law was broken.
The videos are heavily edited, they suggest what the editors want them to suggest.

excellent article http://www.nationalreview.com/node/422048/print
Yes, researchers will pay 20K for fetal stem cells just because they're "curious" and "hopeful."

The videos are heavily edited, they suggest what the editors want them to suggest.

Shocker.

Is it not enough for an investigation, Spence? The lady from Planned Parenthood, in the most recently released video, clearly says that abortion procedures are manipulated to maximize the harvestable tissue.

Spence, when a liberal group released the video of Romney's idiotic remark about 47% of Americans not wanting to work, were you equally concerned about how the footage was obtained? Or are you selective about when you apply this concern?

Yes, researchers will pay 20K for fetal stem cells just because they're "curious" and "hopeful."

Yes, they will. Because as of this moment, nothing of any significance has come from that research.

Elizabeth warren had quite the speech yesterday for republicans on this. Ouch!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, they will. Because as of this moment, nothing of any significance has come from that research.
Why, because someone posted a single biased article stating so? Is that how you form opinions?

Elizabeth warren had quite the speech yesterday for republicans on this. Ouch!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wrong. Her speech was dishoinest at the core. She claims that Republicans are attacking women's health. I can prove that's not true.

In the proposed bills that would de-fund Planned Parenthood, the bill specifically says that the money that would be denied to Planned Parenthood, would go to other organizations that provide reporductive health services, but which aren't in th ebusiness of harvesting dead babies for profit, which you yourself said was didsappointing.

So how, exactly, are the republicans attacking women's health, if they still propose to fund it to the same level? They just don't want taxpayer dollars to go to subsidize an organiuzation that's ghoulish.

Elizabeth Warren is as bad as it gets. She made a fortune flipping foreclosed houses, yet she attacks banks for making money off the poor and vulnerable. She attacks colleges for being too expensive, yet she had no quarrel with making $45ok a year to teach at Harvard Law. And she lied about being a Native american to get that job.

Politics aside, she is absolutely everything that is wrong with politicians. She has no shame.

Why, because someone posted a single biased article stating so? Is that how you form opinions?

No, I knew that before Scott W posted it. Charles Krauthammer (a Harvard-trained physician who is also in a wheelchair, so he stands to gain much from some of this research) has written at length about it. Google it. There have been no significant medical treatments due to embryonic stem cells. They may be promising, but as of today, they haven't delivered anything.

Also, why aren't the Planned {Parenthood videos, which clearly show executives stating that they are in the practice of altering abortion procedures to maximize harvestable tissue, enough to launch an investigation to see if that's exactly what's happening.

Soence, if there was a video of the head of HR at Goldman Sachs saying "I have never hired a black person at this firm, and I never will, i don't care what the law says", would you call for an investigation? Or would you assume that the video was edited, and leave it at that? Hmm?

Elizabeth warren had quite the speech yesterday for republicans on this. Ouch!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, I just watched "quite the speech". She said that she can't believe that in 2015, the US Senate would spend its time defunding "women's health".

Boy, to believe her, those mean Republlicans must really, really hate women. Right?

Wrong. As I said, the bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood calls to transfer that money to other women's health organizations who, unlike Planned Parenthood, aren't in the business of trafficking in baby organs. So the Republicans are not defunding "women's health", they are defunding one, single, morally reprehensible organiation.

Warren can speak so dishonestly, because she is assured that the zombies that support her will not question her, nor will they listen to a syllable that the other side has to say. She is disgusting.

The Senate bill doe snot reduce funding for women's health by one cent. The bill was also sponsored by Senator Joni Ernst from Iowa, who is a woman. So if this is a war on women, why is a woman leading the charge?

Nebe, doesn't that piss you off that Warren would do these things, and ask you to support her? And Hilary did the same exact thing.

Shocker.

The lady from Planned Parenthood, in the most recently released video, clearly says that abortion procedures are manipulated to maximize the harvestable tissue.
so what exactly does that mean? It could mean they try to make sure there are organs to provide for research (of which she clearly stated that they don't make $ off of regardless of how the right is trying to spin the videos).

Spence, when a liberal group released the video of Romney's idiotic remark about 47% of Americans not wanting to work, were you equally concerned about how the footage was obtained? Or are you selective about when you apply this concern?

Totally different - Romney's comment was taped by someone working as a bartender at that event - Not by someone using the sleazy tactics of Breitbart who out and out lies about who he is and represents (of which I'm not so sure is bad).

It is funny watching you state that liberals hate how the video was obtained yet it is conserv. controlled state legisl. who have been passing laws prohibiting people from taking undercover video of farms and slaughter houses.

Yes, they will. Because as of this moment, nothing of any significance has come from that research.

I thought I read a few months ago that some blind or nearly blind people had their vision restored from the implanting of embryonic (sp) stem cells. I could be wrong.

Totally different - Romney's comment was taped by someone working as a bartender at that event - Not by someone using the sleazy tactics of Breitbart who out and out lies about who he is and represents (of which I'm not so sure is bad).

It is funny watching you state that liberals hate how the video was obtained yet it is conserv. controlled state legisl. who have been passing laws prohibiting people from taking undercover video of farms and slaughter houses.

"so what exactly does that mean? It could mean they try to make sure there are organs to provide for research (of which she clearly stated that they don't make $ off of regardless of how the right is trying to spin the videos)."

The law says that it's a crime to alter an abortion procedure for th epurposes of maximizing harvestable tissue. The law doesn't care if the tissue is to be used for scientific reserach or for a sandwich. The $$ is another law, which says you can cover your expenses, but not make a profit.

"Romney's comment was taped by someone working as a bartender at that event - Not by someone using the sleazy tactics of Breitbart "

Splitting hairs. Undercover videos are used to get people to say things they wouldn't say if they knew they were being recorded. Common sense suggests that people will be more honest and sincere, if they don't know they are being recorded. Sometomes, that's the only way to get the truth.

Some liberal jerk called Governor Scott Walker a couple of years ago, claiming to be one of the Koch Brothers, and Walker said some things that he wouldn't have said if he knew it was a set-up, and I don't recall people on the left complaining about how the footage was obtained. Fabulously, Walker did mention it that conversation that he's not concerned about MSNBC because nobody watches it.

"funny watching you state that liberals hate how the video was obtained "

I'm not just stating it, it's true. You yourself decried how the video was obtained.

"t is conserv. controlled state legisl. who have been passing laws prohibiting people from taking undercover video of farms and slaughter houses"

I'm 100% in favor of such undercover videos. While i love a bloody steak, I also believe we have a responsibility to treat the animals as humanely and ethically as is reasonably feasible. Fair enough?

I thought I read a few months ago that some blind or nearly blind people had their vision restored from the implanting of embryonic (sp) stem cells. I could be wrong.

I googled it and didn't see anything, but I could be wrong too.

you state that liberals hate how the video was obtained yet it is conserv. controlled state legisl. who have been passing laws prohibiting people from taking undercover video of farms and slaughter houses.

You are correct on this by the way, and it's disgraceful. I went to high school with, and played tennis with, Wayne Pacelle, who is President of the Humane Society of the United States, and a great guy. I love animals Paul, love them, and you bring up a good point here, and one of the rare issues on which I side with the liberals (death penalty, gay marriage being the others).

"so what exactly does that mean? It could mean they try to make sure there are organs to provide for research (of which she clearly stated that they don't make $ off of regardless of how the right is trying to spin the videos)."

The law says that it's a crime to alter an abortion procedure for th epurposes of maximizing harvestable tissue. The law doesn't care if the tissue is to be used for scientific reserach or for a sandwich. The $$ is another law, which says you can cover your expenses, but not make a profit.
I'm not saying the procedure was altered I'm saying that maybe instead of just ripping the fetus apart, they are more carefull - disgusting, I know and meant it that way.
"Romney's comment was taped by someone working as a bartender at that event - Not by someone using the sleazy tactics of Breitbart "

Splitting hairs. Undercover videos are used to get people to say things they wouldn't say if they knew they were being recorded. Common sense suggests that people will be more honest and sincere, if they don't know they are being recorded. Sometomes, that's the only way to get the truth. i'm gonna disagree that it is splitting hairs. and I did say that I'm not sure I disagree with the tactic.

Some liberal jerk called Governor Scott Walker a couple of years ago, claiming to be one of the Koch Brothers, and Walker said some things that he wouldn't have said if he knew it was a set-up, and I don't recall people on the left complaining about how the footage was obtained. Fabulously, Walker did mention it that conversation that he's not concerned about MSNBC because nobody watches it.I'd consider that the almost the same as the PP video but the same as working at a farm and pulling a camera out and filing the mistreatment of an animal.

"funny watching you state that liberals hate how the video was obtained "

I'm not just stating it, it's true. You yourself decried how the video was obtained. I don't think I stated it the way you just implied I did."t is conserv. controlled state legisl. who have been passing laws prohibiting people from taking undercover video of farms and slaughter houses"

I'm 100% in favor of such undercover videos. While i love a bloody steak, I also believe we have a responsibility to treat the animals as humanely and ethically as is reasonably feasible. Fair enough?

nm

You are correct on this by the way, and it's disgraceful. I went to high school with, and played tennis with, Wayne Pacelle, who is President of the Humane Society of the United States, and a great guy. I love animals Paul, love them, and you bring up a good point here, and one of the rare issues on which I side with the liberals (death penalty, gay marriage being the others).

I know Wayne from a past life (although not good) also. prior to the Humane Society.

nm

"I'm not saying the procedure was altered I'm saying that maybe instead of just ripping the fetus apart, they are more carefull - disgusting, I know and meant it that way. "

But in the videos the PP folks are explicitly saying that the procedures were altered, and they said it was done to influence the useful tissue for later use. That's what was said, and it's a blatant violation of federal law, and whie that alone isn't enough to convict anyone (maybe) sure as hell it should launch an investigation. And at a bare minumum, I should not be required to fund this place. I don't want my $$ going to these heartless ghouls. .

I know Wayne from a past life (although not good) also. prior to the Humane Society.

Small world, sorry your experience wasn't positive. Was he a lawyer before joining HSUS? I think he went to Yale Law School, could be wrong.

Small world, sorry your experience wasn't positive. Was he a lawyer before joining HSUS? I think he went to Yale Law School, could be wrong.

I should have said that I didn't know him well. I knew the family more than Wayne. Nice folks. Yes, Yale law school.

Elizabeth warren had quite the speech yesterday for republicans on this. Ouch!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sounds like she's on the Warpath again

sounds like she's on the Warpath again

She no like-um conservative pale face no want-um pay for baby part
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Saw this today:

If you challenge a liberal who relies on the “heavily edited” defense to tell you what, specifically, the full video shows that reveals that the edited version is unfair in some way, you will get a blank stare in response. I promise – try it for yourself.

Saw this today:

If you challenge a liberal who relies on the “heavily edited” defense to tell you what, specifically, the full video shows that reveals that the edited version is unfair in some way, you will get a blank stare in response. I promise – try it for yourself.

Right. If they coiuld show that the PP folks never actually said these things, but the words about baby harvesting were dubbed in later, that might matter.

It if goes against The Narrative, it can't be legitimate.

Saw this today:

If you challenge a liberal who relies on the “heavily edited” defense to tell you what, specifically, the full video shows that reveals that the edited version is unfair in some way, you will get a blank stare in response. I promise – try it for yourself.
I think it would be more interesting to challenge a conservative as to what specifically the edited video shows that reveals Planned Parenthood is violating the law in some way.

I think it would be more interesting to challenge a conservative as to what specifically the edited video shows that reveals Planned Parenthood is violating the law in some way.

You asked that before, I answered it spot-on, here it is again.

It is a violation of federal law to alter an abortion procedure in any way (tinming, method, positioning, etc), for the purposes of influencing the available tissue to harvest afterwards.

Now, in the videos, there are Planned Parenthood staff making very specific references to their ability to manipulate the procedure to get maximum available baby parts in the end.

So how can anyone possibly fail to conclude, that there is evidence that the law is being broken?

Have fun answering that.

But in the videos the PP folks are explicitly saying that the procedures were altered, and they said it was done to influence the useful tissue for later use. That's what was said, and it's a blatant violation of federal law, and whie that alone isn't enough to convict anyone (maybe) sure as hell it should launch an investigation. And at a bare minumum, I should not be required to fund this place. I don't want my $$ going to these heartless ghouls. .
The laws intent is that you wouldn't say choose one form of abortion over another, or suggest an abortion with the intent of collecting tissue. But once that's said and done it's going to be more expensive to preserve tissue than just dispose of it...it's a different procedure.

As for heartless ghouls, I can guarantee you that many people who work for non-profits do so precisely because they want to help others...

The laws intent is that you wouldn't say choose one form of abortion over another, or suggest an abortion with the intent of collecting tissue. But once that's said and done it's going to be more expensive to preserve tissue than just dispose of it...it's a different procedure.

As for heartless ghouls, I can guarantee you that many people who work for non-profits do so precisely because they want to help others...

I'm not all that interested in your slant on the intent of the law. What the law says, is that you cannot let your concern over harvestable tissue, have any influence in the way abortions are done. The tapes suggest to any person not blinded by ideology, that laws may well have been broken. The women claimed to be manipulating living babies, in such a way as to maximize harvestable tissue. It's a cause for an investigation and for using taxpayer dollars elsewhere.

"I can guarantee you that many people who work for non-profits do so precisely because they want to help others"

The mere fact that an organization does not generate profits, does not make it noble. Did the Klan turn a profit? The Nazis similarly could claim that what they were doing, was for the benefit of others, as some did indeed benefit. A benign charity helps one group without butchering another group, and then bragging about it over salad and red wine.

I'm not all that interested in your slant on the intent of the law. What the law says, is that you cannot let your concern over harvestable tissue, have any influence in the way abortions are done. The tapes suggest to any person not blinded by ideology, that laws may well have been broken. The women claimed to be manipulating living babies, in such a way as to maximize harvestable tissue. It's a cause for an investigation and for using taxpayer dollars elsewhere.
Jim, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. There is a period where the pregnancy is technically terminated but the procedure is not complete. If an agency was to alter the procedure post termination to best preserve the tissue that wouldn't be illegal.

A benign charity helps one group without butchering another group, and then bragging about it over salad and red wine.

You make it sound like dinner at the Vatican.
Food for thought,no pun intended but history proves my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Regardless of what side you are on the argument between you two sounds fairly Ghoulish to me. To be honest it is kind of disgusting. Harvesting Organs from terminated pregnancies. WTF
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. There is a period where the pregnancy is technically terminated but the procedure is not complete. If an agency was to alter the procedure post termination to best preserve the tissue that wouldn't be illegal.

I see. So according to you, it's legal to turn the baby upside down while it's still alive, but illegal to do it after it has been killed. Can you please cite the portion of the law which states that? I would be more than shocked if that were the case, but I am persuadable. Please post that portion of the text.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see. So according to you, it's legal to turn the baby upside down while it's still alive, but illegal to do it after it has been killed. Can you please cite the portion of the law which states that? I would be more than shocked if that were the case, but I am persuadable. Please post that portion of the text.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No, I didn't say anything like that.

No, I didn't say anything like that.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/04/planned-parenthood-official-docs-alter-abortion-procedures-price-structure/

Spence, there is no smoking gun here, but it's enough to look into it, it's enough for me to say I don't want my tax dollars going there, and it's enough (thank God) that many on your side of the abortion issue, are disturbed by this.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/04/planned-parenthood-official-docs-alter-abortion-procedures-price-structure/

Spence, there is no smoking gun here, but it's enough to look into it, it's enough for me to say I don't want my tax dollars going there, and it's enough (thank God) that many on your side of the abortion issue, are disturbed by this.
There isn't any tax money funding abortions, that's Federal law.

What that FOX article misses though is that it's not black or white if processes are changed in regards to fetal tissue. The intent of the law is to ensure the well being of the patient is placed first. If there are multiple methods to perform the abortion and one may be better than the other to collect viable tissue this likely wouldn't be considered a process change under the law unless it created additional pain or stress for the patient.

What the unedited tape also shows is that the PP rep making the statement says that she can't even approve a process change like that and would have to speak with the surgeon to see if it was allowed.

There isn't any tax money funding abortions, that's Federal law.

What that FOX article misses though is that it's not black or white if processes are changed in regards to fetal tissue. The intent of the law is to ensure the well being of the patient is placed first. If there are multiple methods to perform the abortion and one may be better than the other to collect viable tissue this likely wouldn't be considered a process change under the law unless it created additional pain or stress for the patient.

What the unedited tape also shows is that the PP rep making the statement says that she can't even approve a process change like that and would have to speak with the surgeon to see if it was allowed.

"it's not black or white if processes are changed in regards to fetal tissue"

So let's investigate, and find out if laws were broken. In the meantime, if you want to donate your money to pay for an organization that kills babies for money, that's your right, but I'd prefer to be left out of that scenario.

The other thing that both the edited and unedited tape show, are folks discussing these things with a callousness that would be shocking, except it's obviously a pre-requisite to work at such a place. That callousness is making a lot of people take notice, and Hilary's support may not play well in the general.

So let's investigate, and find out if laws were broken. In the meantime, if you want to donate your money to pay for an organization that kills babies for money, that's your right, but I'd prefer to be left out of that scenario.
It's a non-profit organization Jim. They don't kill babies for money.

The other thing that both the edited and unedited tape show, are folks discussing these things with a callousness that would be shocking, except it's obviously a pre-requisite to work at such a place. That callousness is making a lot of people take notice, and Hilary's support may not play well in the general.
The reality is you'll see a similar attitude with most fields that deal in gruesome subjects. I doubt it's really any different than hacking cadavers up for medical purposes...and yes that would include implanting a dead person's body parts into another for medical treatments...I'd wager you'd have a pretty cold perspective as well.

Sure, it's hard to listen to but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Remember, this entire discussion was spawned by a anti-abortion group.

It's a non-profit organization Jim. They don't kill babies for money.


The reality is you'll see a similar attitude with most fields that deal in gruesome subjects. I doubt it's really any different than hacking cadavers up for medical purposes...and yes that would include implanting a dead person's body parts into another for medical treatments...I'd wager you'd have a pretty cold perspective as well.

Sure, it's hard to listen to but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Remember, this entire discussion was spawned by a anti-abortion group.

how low can U go......

how low can U go......
MC'ing a limbo contest?

It's a non-profit organization Jim. They don't kill babies for money.


The reality is you'll see a similar attitude with most fields that deal in gruesome subjects. I doubt it's really any different than hacking cadavers up for medical purposes...and yes that would include implanting a dead person's body parts into another for medical treatments...I'd wager you'd have a pretty cold perspective as well.

Sure, it's hard to listen to but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Remember, this entire discussion was spawned by a anti-abortion group.

This may be news to you Spence, but even non-profits can occasionally be involved in wrongdoing.

"Sure, it's hard to listen to but that doesn't mean it's illegal"

Let's find out if it was illegal. And just because it's legal, doesn't mean taxpayers need to fund it.

. Remember, this entire discussion was spawned by a anti-abortion group.

Meaning what, exactly? I sit inconceivablke that an anti-abortion group could uncover wrong-doing? It's not possible?

It's a non-profit organization Jim. They don't kill babies for money.
.

Let's examine that, shall we?

Dr. Mary Gatter, Council President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Directors, in Video #2, she says
“Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine,” Gatter said. “If it’s still low, then we can bump it up....I want a Lamborghini.”

Now, if all PP wants to do is cover expenses, then why is any deal contingent on making sure that the rate is competitive to what others are getting? If all PP cares about is covering their own expenses, then it shouldn't give a rat's azz about making sure no one else has a better deal.

As to her statement about the car, who knows what she meant. But if her goal is indeed to kill enough babies to get a lamborghini, then this c*nt can do it without reaching into my wallet, OK?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/10/i-don-t-know-if-i-m-pro-choice-anymore.html#

MC'ing a limbo contest?

seems like it reading you constant bending over backwards to defend evil and wrongdoing...:eek5:

It's a non-profit organization Jim. They don't kill babies for money.

that's right...kill the babies out of compassion and sell the parts for money....


The reality is you'll see a similar attitude with most fields that deal in gruesome subjects. I know right, like those videos of the things that happen on farms with livestock that ....wait....that horrifies pretty much everyone and has cause changes in the attitudes of society, even laws, after seeing the undercover films...

I doubt it's really any different than hacking cadavers up for medical purposes......don't you need one's permission? and yes that would include implanting a dead person's body parts into another for medical treatments...again permission...I'd wager you'd have a pretty cold perspective as well. I'm pretty sure that if a hospital or morgue was running an operation selling body parts and if that hospital's hierarchy was exposed in similar fashion with the sentiments expressed by these creeps....there would be a massive uproar...look at the morgues that have been exposed for not properly handling customers


Sure, it's hard to listen to but that doesn't mean it's illegal. I suspect most normal people never dreamed that this was going on and being directed by these sickos....might be illegal pretty soon:wave:Remember, this entire discussion was spawned by a anti-abortion group.

pretty solid job of reporting...and courageous

great article http://www.nationalreview.com/node/422305/print

Let's examine that, shall we?

Dr. Mary Gatter, Council President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Directors, in Video #2, she says
“Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine,” Gatter said. “If it’s still low, then we can bump it up....I want a Lamborghini.”

Now, if all PP wants to do is cover expenses, then why is any deal contingent on making sure that the rate is competitive to what others are getting? If all PP cares about is covering their own expenses, then it shouldn't give a rat's azz about making sure no one else has a better deal.

As to her statement about the car, who knows what she meant. But if her goal is indeed to kill enough babies to get a lamborghini, then this c*nt can do it without reaching into my wallet, OK?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/10/i-don-t-know-if-i-m-pro-choice-anymore.html#
Selective editing.

In the full video she says multiple times they don't look to make a profit, she laughs off the Lamborghini remark as mocking the idea they're out for profit...and the best is the "undercover" actors were pushing her to accept more money which she was resisting.

In other words, it's nearly 180 degrees from your perception.

It's a non-profit organization Jim.



So is the NFL.......squeaky clean there. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So is the NFL.......squeaky clean there. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Actually I thought they dropped their status this spring...mostly so they could hide Goodell's salary. Too bad he's going to be on unemployment soon.

In other words, it's nearly 180 degrees from your perception.

it's OK Jim, always need to remember that Spence's perception is 180 degrees from reality......funny how the left is vigilant about political correctness, unacceptable speech, compassion and appropriate tone and tenor regarding certain issues until the ghoulishness or bad behaviour of someone involved in one of their pet projects is exposed....rather than punish the ghoul or the criminal or the nare-do-well, they attack the appalled....which is 180 degrees from how they treat someone that they disagree with politically who commits a PC sin....we have many examples of this now....odd behaviour

Just read that Jeb's grandfather, Sen. Prescott Bush was PP's first treasurer and his name was on fundraising letters.

Just read that Jeb's grandfather, Sen. Prescott Bush was PP's first treasurer and his name was on fundraising letters.
Oh he certainly was heavily involved with PP.

It does make you wonder if all this eugenics hype is a lot of nothing and the real issue is about women's health and control over their own bodies. Remember, back then abortions were done in back alleys and even information about contraception was illegal.

Oh he certainly was heavily involved with PP.

It does make you wonder if all this eugenics hype is a lot of nothing and the real issue is about women's health and control over their own bodies. Remember, back then abortions were done in back alleys and even information about contraception was illegal.

"It does make you wonder if all this eugenics hype is a lot of nothing "

Tell that to the black ministers who are trying to remover her likeness from the Smithsonian. Spence, is there any evidence that she didn't support eugenics? Just because that would help your personal agenda, that doesn't make it evidence.

"the real issue is about women's health and control over their own bodies"

Oh, it's not about killing babies, but "women's health"? Spence, why are so many women opposed to abortion? These women, like Carly Fiorina, are opposed to their own health? Do you honestly believe that?

More evidence that it's not about "womens health" - the bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood, would divert every single cent that currently goes to Planned Parenthood, to other "women's health" organizations that don't do the things that Planned Parenthood does. If the goal was to diminish women's health, why doesn't the bill propose to cut funding to women's health by a single cent? And why was the bill proposed by a female US Senator?

Do you ever get tired of ignoring the facts and trying to dishonestly demonize the other side? I guess it's easier than responding to what we are actually saying.

Fortunately we have plenty of good homes for those unwanted babies. The foster care in Auburn is a perfect example.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fortunately we have plenty of good homes for those unwanted babies. The foster care in Auburn is a perfect example.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't know what you are referring to, I guess you are being sarcastic.

But at least you aren't referring to any horsebleep about "women's health". Now you are saying this is for the good of the baby?

We also have people who wait for years to adopt babies. Years. What that means, is that there are more people who want babies, than there are babies that are available.

Sea Dangles, would you rather be slaughtered, or put in a foster home?

If they need to raise my taxes to provide better care for neglected kids, I have zero issue with that. Tax away!

If I am going to be tortured in a foster home please kill me first. You know less than you think Jim.and you prove it consistently
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If I am going to be tortured in a foster home please kill me first. You know less than you think Jim.and you prove it consistently
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well Sea Dangles, (1) given the years-long waiting lists for people desperate to adopt a baby, I think it's safe to say that not many babies end up unwanted and in foster care as you depicted...that's mostly older kids who find themselves in a lousy deal. And (2) given that kids in foster homes are not committing suicide in huge numbers, I think I can make a pretty compelling case that those people feel their lives are, in fact, worth living. So, let's be honest and not suggest that abortion is doing these babies a favor.

Read the news Jim. I am well aware of the adoption process. My good friends just took three trips and 100k. Cash to Moscow. Where did I suggest it was doing favors?
Google foster care in Auburn.
I am pro abortion, you are not.i wont try to convert you and if you were smart you would do the same. I am predicting you wont though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Read the news Jim. I am well aware of the adoption process. My good friends just took three trips and 100k. Cash to Moscow. Where did I suggest it was doing favors?
Google foster care in Auburn.
I am pro abortion, you are not.i wont try to convert you and if you were smart you would do the same. I am predicting you wont though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Where did I suggest it was doing favors?"

Come now. You suggested that, when you said you woul drather be killed than go to foster care.

"I am well aware of the adoption process"

If you claim that large numbers of surrendered newborns would end up in foster care, then I'd challenge your statement that you know a lot about this.

"Google foster care in Auburn"

you google it. One lousy foster care situation, does not meen that all those kids would be better off having never been born.

I'm not trying to convert you, just trying to correct your false statements.

Well Sea Dangles, (1) given the years-long waiting lists for people desperate to adopt a baby perfect newborn white babies, I think it's safe to say that not many babies end up unwanted and in foster care as you depicted...
Fixed.

Without Down's syndrome.


Double fixed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed.

So what happens to all the imperfect babies that anti-abortion people give up for adoption? Do they all die in the streets? Are they all tortured to death in foster homes?

More misdirection on your part. A small % of abortions are selected because of medical problems of the baby. The vast majority of abortions are done for sheer convenience, nothing else. You can talk about women's health and babies with medical issues, but thats not the heart of the issue. Most abortions are performed on moms who simply don't want to go through pregnancy.

Fixed.

Sorry, jut saw that you also brought race into it.

What evidence do you have, that black babies that get put up for adoption, have miserable lives? Are there huge, institutional orphanages for these kids, that no one ever told me about>

If we need to take better care of these kids, I will happily pay my share of that. To say that they'd be better off to never exist, is quite a leap, and I can't fathom how you feel qualified to make that call.

In the latest PP video released, a former technician at a place that procures fetal tisue, on her experiences dealing with aborted babies at Planned Parenthood.

I ahve no idea if she's telling the truth. But what she says, is she witnessed an aborted baby outside the womb, whose heart was possibly still beating, and they cut through th eface o fthe baby to get the brain tissue. This happened, I guess, at Planned Parenthood.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2015/08/19/what-you-do-is-you-go-through-the-face-seventh-center-for-medical-progress-video-released-n2040909#!

Maybe I'm a radical, but I don't want my tax dollars going to that place.

Jim, do you know how many of your tax dollars have gone to killing people? I'd wager a guess that your tax dollars go to killing people in foreign wars to the tune of 99.98% vs 0.02% that might end up at PP
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, do you know how many of your tax dollars have gone to killing people? I'd wager a guess that your tax dollars go to killing people in foreign wars to the tune of 99.98% vs 0.02% that might end up at PP
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no doubt that more of my $$ goes to help our military kill people than goes to PP.

Here's the difference. Our military kills really bad people. PP kills unborn babies.

Apples and oranges, dont you think?

Here's the rub. Look up how many innocent Iraqi civilians were killed by errant air strikes, misguided small arms fire, etc... We're those people "bad"?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's the rub. Look up how many innocent Iraqi civilians were killed by errant air strikes, misguided small arms fire, etc... We're those people "bad"?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, they are not all bad, but that's an unavoidable reality of war. It's tragic.

Slaughtering our own unborn, simply because it's easier than accepting the responsibilities of our actions, is not inevitable.

In any event, I shouldn't have to pay for it.

I'm about to be totally tasteless but if a single mom chooses not to have an abortion and then goes off of welfare to the tune of $30 grand a year or what ever it pays out... You will end up paying a hell of a lot more then. There's that tasteless saying that the GOP stops caring for you the moment you are born.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm about to be totally tasteless but if a single mom chooses not to have an abortion and then goes off of welfare to the tune of $30 grand a year or what ever it pays out... You will end up paying a hell of a lot more then. There's that tasteless saying that the GOP stops caring for you the moment you are born.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think that's tasteless, I think it's a fair point. My response would be, I would love to pay more taxes to take care of babies saved by outlawing abortion, and I am certain that a huge % of anti-abortion folks would feel the same way. Conservatives don't claim that we shouldn't pay taxes, we just don't want to pay for useless, wasteful things. I'm happy to pay to take care of people in need.

That tasteless saying about the GOP not caring after you are born is a great bumper sticker, but it's demonstrably false. A study called "Who Really Cares" showed conculsively that conservatives are actually more charitable than liberals. Not that liberals are stingy, because they aren't. But to suggest that Republicans don't care? That's nonsense. That sayong isn't tasteless, but it sure is thoughtless. Again, deigned to demonize the opposition, instead of responsing to what we are actually saying.

I think you are an exception to the mass of GOP party who think welfare is the tool of the devil.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

At least Jim admitted to being radical which he described as slander when I accused him of being Taliban. He has his point of view and I don't expect that to change. I am not opposed to abortion for convenience, it is a personal choice that one has to live with forever. There are many babies born to troubled parents that have serious disablities, they are special children that require great expense and care. Thank goodness there are some willing to accept this burden. Life is too short to not be happy, I simply don't believe that a mistake should be reason to deal with the stigma that is attached to being a single Mom.
To someone like Jim I am sure this makes me a savage but I don't expect that to change. And I still consider him to be extreme to the point of Taliban. In my opinion society would benefit from less Jims.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look at what happens in China with their 1 child rule.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you are an exception to the mass of GOP party who think welfare is the tool of the devil.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe you are correct? Tough to measure. In my experience, conservatives are happy to help people who genuinely need help. What we are opposed to (as I bet you are also opposed to) is giving welfare to people who could easiy be working, and I am opposed to (as I bet you are) welfare programs that cripple recipients my making them addicted to welfare.

Lots of conservatives are Christians, and Christians put a very, very high emphasis on charity. Not all of us are good Christians, of course, but you get my meaning.

At least Jim admitted to being radical which he described as slander when I accused him of being Taliban. He has his point of view and I don't expect that to change. I am not opposed to abortion for convenience, it is a personal choice that one has to live with forever. There are many babies born to troubled parents that have serious disablities, they are special children that require great expense and care. Thank goodness there are some willing to accept this burden. Life is too short to not be happy, I simply don't believe that a mistake should be reason to deal with the stigma that is attached to being a single Mom.
To someone like Jim I am sure this makes me a savage but I don't expect that to change. And I still consider him to be extreme to the point of Taliban. In my opinion society would benefit from less Jims.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"At least Jim admitted to being radical "

In which "radical" means I don't support the wholsale slaughter of millions of unborn babies for sheer convenience. I feel that if you choose to engage in an activity, then you are responsible to face the music for the ramifications. Is that such a radical notion to you?

"Thank goodness there are some willing to accept this burden"

On that we agree 100%. Special place in heaven for those souls.

"I simply don't believe that a mistake should be reason to deal with the stigma that is attached to being a single Mom"

First, i don't think there is any stigma (anymore) with being a single Mom in our culture. And living with that burden is not necessary, because adoption is always an option. Always.

As to your characterization of me as Taliban...well, as we all know, the Taliban feel justified in slaughtering the innocent for their own personal benefit. Now, on this issue, does that position sound more like you, or more like me? Who has more in common with them?

"In my opinion society would benefit from less Jims"

A wee bit harsh, but you are entitled to that opinion...maybe you meant society would benefit from less "gyms"?

Gay men make great adoptive parents! I'll make a liberal out of you yet Jim :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gay men make great adoptive parents! I'll make a liberal out of you yet Jim :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, I'm pro gay marriage (wasn't always, but came around), and I have no problem with gays adopting as long as they are vetted and checked out. I know lots of heterosexuals who are terrible parents. Being able to create kids, doesn't automatically bestow anyone with the ability to love them. And love is 99% of what a kid needs.

"I'll make a liberal out of you yet Jim" Not gonna happen, but you do know how to debate with respect and an open mind.

How me supporting a right to choose benefits me is lost here Gym. I simply support the right to choose. You feel this should not be a persons right. Why not just say allah akbar?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How me supporting a right to choose benefits me is lost here Gym. I simply support the right to choose. You feel this should not be a persons right. Why not just say allah akbar?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

" i simply support the right to choose"

To choose WHAT? Why do pro-abortion folks always just say "right to choose"? Are we talking about the right to choose to root for the Red Sox? Are we talking about the right to choose to wear pants instead of a skirt? If you support abortion, why do you all bend over backwards to avoid stating what it is exactly, that you support the right to choose? If you are so uncomfortable saying it, why do you support it?

You support the right of one person to slaughter a perfectly innocent baby, for convenience. That position, to me, sounds like something the Taliban woiuld embrace. My stance, that all life is too precious to be snuffed out for another's convenience, is clearly contrary to the Taliban agenda.

Try making that wrong.

When uncle touch too much knocks up his 14 year old niece, there should be a right to choose. When you know you have a baby with horrible birth defects, there should be a right to choose. When a girl is gang raped after someone slipped her a roofie at the frat house, there should be a right to choose.
Its really quite simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The problem with conservative thinking is that things tend to become black and white. A more liberal way of thinking breaks down the problem and says "what if".

The fact is that while some may abuse this option out of pure convenience, the option has to be there for the times when the mother knows that this is the best option to take.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The problem with conservative thinking is that things tend to become black and white. A more liberal way of thinking breaks down the problem and says "what if".

The fact is that while some may abuse this option out of pure convenience, the option has to be there for the times when the mother knows that this is the best option to take.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Abortion was always legal in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother was in jeopardy. What Roe V Wade did, was makit it legal to abort for sheer convenience.

"The problem with conservative thinking is that things tend to become black and white"

I would state that is a virtue of conservative thinking. In my opinion, there are moral absolutes in our world. The problem with liberal thinking, is that it's based on the philosophy of "if it feels good, do it, anything goes".

"while some may abuse this option out of pure convenience"

Why use the word "may"? There's zero confusion here, the vast majority of abortions are done for convenience, every study shows that. So if you think that convenience abortions are an abuse, does that mean you think they shoiuld be illegal?

"the option has to be there for the times when the mother knows that this is the best option to take"

For whom i sit the best option? Not the baby. You're saying that one person (the mother) can do anything she wants, without regards to others, when it's her 'best option'? Using that logic, why don't we legalize slavery again, because cheap labor may be the 'best option' for the plantatoion owner?

Conservatives tend to believe that there are 2 people to consider in this equation, Nebe. Despite what Sea Dangkes says, the pro-life poeition isn't designed for the intent to enslave the mother. It's to protect the other person involved.

We're way off track here, but it's not about the general concept of "choice". We all favor criminal laws that limit the "choices" one person can make, if that choice would hurt someone else. Every single one of us agrees on that, and i don't think that makes any of us "anti-choice". This issue, then, is only about one thing - whether or not the baby represents "someone else" who has dignity, value, and worth. I believe the baby does have dignity and worth, and for that, Sea Dangles compares me to the Taliban.

When uncle touch too much knocks up his 14 year old niece, there should be a right to choose. When you know you have a baby with horrible birth defects, there should be a right to choose. When a girl is gang raped after someone slipped her a roofie at the frat house, there should be a right to choose.
Its really quite simple.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, in that scenario, abortion was laways legal. Most pro-lifers would be thrilled to pass a law keeping abortion legal in the cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mom is in jeopardy.

"When you know you have a baby with horrible birth defects, there should be a right to choose"

And who gets to decide when a human being is sufficiently perfect to be granted life, and who isn't? And if that's the barometer we use, what about kids who become "defected" after they are born, why can't we kill them then?

You are focusing on the exceptions to the rule. How about the much more common scenario, where a healthy woman chooses to have sex with someone, gets pregnant, and simply doesn't want to deal with the aggravations of being pregnant? In your opinion, should that be legal, or not? Because if you say that shouldn't be legal, I have news for you - you agree with the majority of conservatives on this issue.

Slavery is legal Jim. It's just done very stealthy. It's called wage stagnation with inflated living costs. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Slavery is legal Jim. It's just done very stealthy. It's called wage stagnation with inflated living costs. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, as opposed to "conservative thinking" in which words in a legal sense (the sense Jim was using with the word slavery) have black and white definitions, you prefer the "more liberal way of thinking" and use the word slavery in a "what if" sense--what if slavery is anything that puts a stress or discomfort or economic pressure on someone.

Or, rather than just using the word in a "more" liberal way, Why not totally separate from "conservative thinking" and be the ultimate "liberal" (in terms of how you once defined the distinction) and be "creative" rather than dogmatic and use words, such as slavery, in a poetic or metaphorical sense. Why not go whole hog and say that the word can mean whatever you want it to mean?

That is, after all, how we have "progressed" from what progressives considered a dogmatic, black and white, constitutional form of government into the ultimate "liberal" fiat-to-suit-the-moment form of rule. By "free" and creative "what if" interpretation of the words in the Constitution it was, and is, used as a pretense of legality (actually removing the "conservative" black and white from legality and making it more liberal) to hide what was and is actually a "creative" rewriting of the document.

Ironically, "conservatives," using liberal linguistics would say that this liberally created system of government is slavery. And they would have a stronger case that it is than the what if slavery is whatever you want it to be argument that you used here. We are not legally bound to wage stagflation and inflated living costs. We are not under the threat of fines, imprisonment, or death if we, as many do, find ways to cope with or transcend that condition. But those who transgress the abundant and arbitrary fiat rules of so-called "liberal" government can be subjected to slavish punishment.

Ironically, again, constitutionalism limited the ability of government to "enslave" us and provided means, by consent of the people, to remove despotic rules. Progressivism, on the other hand expands the ability of the government to enslave us. Even to the point of the unlimited ability to do so.

And, ironically again, the wage stagflation and inflated living costs are not a result of "conservative" free market forces, but are brought about by "liberal" manipulation and progressive control of the market. Free market forces would not sustain inflated living costs without rising wages. The only way such a condition can be maintained is by government control and manipulation. Government control and manipulation of the market is not constitutional "conservative thinking." It is the essence of progressive thought.

Jim has a valuable faith based opinion. He believes what he believes. This is not a new topic. I just think he is an extremist whack job. But he has a right to opine. It is a chicken / egg type of discussion to put it simply. But it is a hot topic, lets just disagee and move on.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i was just reading about the brick making kilns in Pakistan. They pay their workers hardly anything. When a worker's family member has a medical emergency the brick kiln owner will give them a loan as a bond. Then the owner sells that bond to another brick kiln for double and then they sell it again for double. The worker is forced to pay off that bond and the result is legalized slavery.
Slavery has many forms. Just ask any submissive bible thumping stay at home housewife with an alcoholic husband with a heavy hand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The problem with liberal thinking, is that it's based on the philosophy of "if it feels good, do it, anything goes".



Agree Jim, all this so called free thinking and rejecting morals started in the 60s.
Everybody who was saying "if it feels good do it" wanted to have everybody else join in so it could become OK and guiltless whether it be drugs free sex or whatever.

The 60s generation is now in control and have carried their liberal philosophy with them still saying "if it feels good do it ",as long that no one else get's hurt.

Well people do get hurt by this behavior. Drug use prevents people from facing their problems, breaks up families , causes crime, killings and increase taxes for re-hab and law enforcement.
Free sex causes unwanted pregnancy, one parent families, abortion and taxes to treat aids and need of planned parenthood to "solve?" the problem.

Common sense says others are always affected by "if it feels good do it."

I am guessing you haven't watched the movie foot loose.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i was just reading about the brick making kilns in Pakistan. They pay their workers hardly anything. When a worker's family member has a medical emergency the brick kiln owner will give them a loan as a bond. Then the owner sells that bond to another brick kiln for double and then they sell it again for double. The worker is forced to pay off that bond and the result is legalized slavery.
Slavery has many forms. Just ask any submissive bible thumping stay at home housewife with an alcoholic husband with a heavy hand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, slavery can be reduced in form to a black and white legal definition, or can expand in form to whatever "what if" definition you desire. You can ultimately say that life is slavery and only death can set you free. Or, you might say that life frees you from death. You can take it anyway you want. There are no limits the creative forms the word slavery can take. But in order to have a cohesive conversation, the same form should be used by all parties. Or, the discussion can take on a liberal escape from conservative black and white and dissolve into a creatively beautiful chaos. And the fabulous beauty of that is that everyone with his personal form will be satisfied with his own righteousness.

As for the Pakistan brick making thing . . . is that a result of what we consider a form of conservative free market, or is there a strong component of government and cultural control?

Oh snap. More on slavery.

For profit prisons that are independently owned. That's true American slavery right there and a big reason why the war on drugs is such a sham.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Nebe;1079590]When uncle touch too much knocks up his 14 year old niece, there should be a right to choose. QUOTE]

Confused, U talking about Josh Duggar or Jared Fogle ........:)....LMAO

Oh snap. More on slavery.

For profit prisons that are independently owned. That's true American slavery right there and a big reason why the war on drugs is such a sham.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They are not truly "independently" owned. They are government contractors. They are paid by government. They, in effect, are government subsidiaries handling government "property." They neither produce nor sell the "property." They rent their own property to house government "property." They are government warehouses contracted by private entities.

This is not conservative free market. The for profit prisons cannot make arrests or hold trials or exact punishments other than what the government prescribes. They are not a private police force. They are a government concoction in order to reduce government expenditure. The use of the term profit is, in a what if sense, being used just as it can be used by government prisons using prisoners to produce various items such as licenses which can be sold at higher prices to the rest of us. This is a market at the behest and control of government. Though the contractors can compete for the contracts, the government has no competitors. This is not conservative free market capitalism. This is government controlled market. In a constitutional system, people cannot be considered property sold to the highest (or lowest in this case) bidder. This tends more toward the Orwellian form--in which direction progressivism takes us.

I am guessing you haven't watched the movie foot loose.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No I haven't, just using my life experiences having been in my 20's during the 60s. Doubt a movie could tell me something I don't know. A movie is just that, a movie. :)
A lot of movies are made to be controversial to bring in the big bucks to Hollywood.

I'd rather trust what I lived at the time.

Nebe, always willing to learn, I read and watched the trailer about the 1985
movie Foot Loose.Nothing new here just another teenage rebellion movie,
not much different than the 1955 James Dean movie Rebel Without a Cause which played in my High School years.

We rebelled at the 1960 Newport Jazz Festival and we were cleared off the island by the National Guard,
a good time, along with a lot of rock and roll and jazz concerts, but so what.

Everybody has their rebel years, the difference imho, were most of the 40s-50s
generation quickly became mature responsible citizens while many of the 60s plus generations
are still trying to live there teenage years. Immaturity at it's best. Rock on. :)

The problem with conservative thinking is that things tend to become black and white. A more liberal way of thinking breaks down the problem and says "what if".

The fact is that while some may abuse this option out of pure convenience, the option has to be there for the times when the mother knows that this is the best option to take.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

interesting use of words

Confirmation from a doctor, that when babies are aborted at PP and dissected for harvestable tissue, that sometimes the heart is still beating after the abortion is complete, and after the baby is born. Heart still beating on this baby, when they cut through its face to get the brain. Sounds like an account of what the Japanese were doing in the early 1940s.

What progressive thinking, I suppose, right Nebe? Maybe I'm too "black and white", but I would prefer that if the baby is born alive, that the harvest is called off and the baby is cared for. Because after it's outside the womb, why is the mom still in charge of saying it's OK to kill it, and if a Mom can do THAT, why can't said Mom decide after the baby is 2 years old, that she wants to kill it. How is this an issue of "women's health", after the baby is born?

You know who would be OK with this? Our President, because when he was a state senator in IL, it was found out that some babies who survived abortions were being killed after they were out of the womb. Twice legislation came to Obama's desk that would have ended that barbarity. Twice he worked to block it.

Mother's health? Woman's ability to take control of her own body? Or infanticide?

The video isn't foolproof, but it should be looked into.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/19/baby-heart-still-beating-after-abortion-doctor-says-in-new-anti-abortion-video/?ref=yfp

Barbaric, where's the Liberal love?
It's murder, how can anyone justify it?

Barbaric, where's the Liberal love?
It's murder, how can anyone justify it?

We are becoming a culture where that's not shocking or appalling. I bet Eisenhower is up there looking down at us, shaking his head, wondering what the hell it is that he fought for.

In China, in accordance with their 1 baby policy, they will sometimes drag a pregnant woman, against her will, to have a state-ordered abortion. Barbaric, right? But if that baby is born alive, it is required to be cared for. In other words, on this issue, the Chinese are more human than we are. Lovely.

If what is claimed in the video is accurate (and it may not be), that is barbaric. When people speak up against that, Hilary will say that we are waging a war on women, and that we don't care about women's health.

That's about as dishonest as it gets. That, and when asked if her server was wiped clean, she looked dumbfounded and asked "what, do you mean with a cloth?"

yeah, that's who I want at the helm.

Spence, you defend this how, exactly? Tell me why this behavior is not only not barbaric, but that if I had the ability to think elegantly and progressively, I'd see that this is, in fact, a cause for celebration.

When we cannot agree that this is immoral, I honestly have no idea what unites us as a country anymore. And I mean that.

When we cannot agree that this is immoral, I honestly have no idea what unites us as a country anymore. And I mean that.

We have lost our moral compass.
We were united when we had a cause of fighting for freedom around the world
and helping wherever we were needed.
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

We have lost our moral compass.
We were united when we had a cause of fighting for freedom around the world
and helping wherever we were needed.
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

this is the result of ignoring what is clearly black and white and asking "what if" too frequently and then trying to support or defend "what if" because we think that the ability to ask "what if" rather than see black and white makes one smarter than those who don't need to ask "what if" :) ...... when my kids ask "what if"...it's usually because they don't have enough information, life experience or understanding to come to a conclusion or they are trying to get around what is clearly black and white for their own benefit

this is the result of ignoring what is clearly black and white and asking "what if" too frequently and then trying to support or defend "what if" because we think that the ability to ask "what if" rather than see black and white makes one smarter than those who don't need to ask "what if" :) ...... when my kids ask "what if"...it's usually because they don't have enough information, life experience or understanding to come to a conclusion or they are trying to get around what is clearly black and white for their own benefit

"this is the result of ignoring what is clearly black and white and asking "what if" too frequently "

You will never make a more astute post. Asking "what if" doesn't automatically bestow on someone, more sophisticated thinking than those who see an issue in black and white. Not every human impulse is a cause for celebration.

There are moral absolutes...

if you live your life in black and white and ignore the what ifs, your going to walk into a lot of walls.

if you live your life in black and white and ignore the what ifs, your going to walk into a lot of walls.

and if you are so engrossed in your "what if' world that you ignore the black and white reality, you could walk right off of a cliff .....



"what if" we apply the left's attitudes toward abortion to the illegal immigration problem...call it "Planned Citizenhood"...there's a new opportunity for an agency...black and white would say " yeah, i think it's wrong to kill people for crossing the border illegally"...."what if " would try to rationalize the reasons and advantages ignoring the right and wrong....

if you live your life in black and white and ignore the what ifs, your going to walk into a lot of walls.

Nebe, what's your opinion on cutting through the face of a baby with a beating heart, to extract its brain? "What if" that's actually happening? Does that bother you?

It's fine to ask "what if" sometimes, as you can't achieve discovery without it. But there are issues that have zero moral ambiguity. I would think that at the very top of that list, would be harvesting the brain from a living human baby. But liberals don't concede that's wrong. And I don't get it.

Do I think it's wrong? Yes.
The cold hard fact is this... The fetus was going to be aborted no matter what. Why not use it to the greatest possible benefit? I believe that is the logic here.
I'm a dad.... I chose life.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do I think it's wrong? Yes.
The cold hard fact is this... The fetus was going to be aborted no matter what. Why not use it to the greatest possible benefit? I believe that is the logic here.
I'm a dad.... I chose life.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"What if" life itself is tenuous and precious?

"What if" any notion of the sanctity of life is subject to the greatest possible harm from not only accepting the fact that an innocent living human being is "going to be aborted no matter what" but from also accepting that body parts from a living human being can be extracted against its will for some possible, yet unknown, so-called benefit?

"What if" life is not to be seen as merely "black and white" existence opposed to non-existence? "What if" their is a "creative" beauty in its creation and a "black and white" nihilistic emptiness to its "black and white" destruction?

"What If" life itself has no claim to our rational or creative thoughts, impulses, or actions. If so, what is the point of destroying it for some unknown "greatest possible benefit" to it?

What if the Nazis and Mengele were right?

Abortion was always legal in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother was in jeopardy. What Roe V Wade did, was makit it legal to abort for sheer convenience.
I don't believe that's accurate. Abortion has been legal to protect the life of the mother, but not always in cases of rape and incest.

The fetus was going to be aborted no matter what. Why not use it to the greatest possible benefit? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let me take a page out of your book.

"What if", instead of boring through a living baby's face to get it's brain, it was saved? "What if" after being saved, it went to medical school and cured cancer? Or became an actuary, or an artist?

What if my aunt had balls
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All of those things are possible...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What if my aunt had balls
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In times past, she would be your uncle. Now, however, she could still be your aunt, but she wouldn't necessarily be a she or a he. The only way to discern her/his/it's gender would be to ask what she prefers it to be . . . another benefit of living your life in what if.

All of those things are possible...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which makes "what if" meaningless, or useless, or contradictory. But, in spite of those "black and white" detractions . . . it's a beautiful thing. If life sucks, one can live through beautiful movies . . . like Avatar . . . or TV shows . . . like Ozzie and Harriet . . . and if black and white reporting of events is too disturbing, one can get more palatable news by watching things like the Daily show . . . etc. The possibilities of a wonderful "what if" pseudo life are endless.