Rip wrote:Although I'm sure most of you don't care. Too worried about important things like who killed a lion and such.
Rip wrote:we as a society I fear are more concerned about animals that have their lives terminated than that of unborn babies.
I've seen this similar sentiment repeated ad nauseum by most of my conservative friends over the last few days. "Unborn babies are suffering, but liberals only care about dead lions". "Our Veterans are suffering, but liberals only care about dead lions." "Small Businesses are suffering, but liberals are only concerned about dead lions." "The economy is suffering, but liberals are only concerned about dead lions."
You know, it is possible to be interested/concerned about more than one issue at a time. These things are not mutually exclusive.
What irks me about the entire conservative thing is abortion is bad! Oh, but we cut funding to food stamps so low income familys with children get to starve. Abortion bad, lets cut family planning. Abortion bad, but lets cut funding to low income health care. Abortion bad, but lets not teach kids sex education. Big government shouldn't interfere in peoples lives, but abortion bad so outlaw it.
It just seems to me that if you are completely against something, you should offer an alternative. Having a child has a large economic decision. Give them some other alternative. Currently the only one in many situations is bring them into a life were they can't be supported and likely turn to a life of crime, or put them up for adoption, where there are already hundreds of thousands of kids already waiting.
To me it's all about giving a more humane option. Currently I am pro-abortion, pro-food stamps, pro-lunch in schools, and pro low income health care. It seems more humane to help a poor couple that realizes it cannot support a child to have the option of not bringing the child into the world. Then for the poor couple who decides to have the child, it seems more humane to make sure the child is at least not starving and has access to medical care.
But someone could convince me to get behind banning abortion, banning food stamps, banning lunch in schools and banning low income health care if they also tell me they are FOR mandatory child killing for couples below the poverty line. Because it seems to me more humane to kill the child rather than have it try to eek out a meager existence otherwise. So how about it, any takers?
Being given a choice and forcing an abortion are two very different things. Are those individuals that beat the odds? Absolutely, but there are also those that get the short end of the stick. To me in many cases it would come down to a quality of life issue. I had a acquaintance who was in a wreck and is pretty much a vegetable, he is technically alive as in he breaths on his own, but no real cognitive function. By the religious definition he should be kept alive at all costs, a complete burden on everyone around him, but hey he has the right to life. While I do not advocate the killing/murder/(insert provacative term here), I do not see purpose for forcing people to bring new life into this world under those conditions. That is not to say the people that do this are wrong, I just do not see an issue with those that choose not to.
The other difference is the platform for the conservative cause is what was linked to above, the pro-choice/pro-abortion crowd I don't think is advocating the "mandating child killing for couples below the poverty line".
Genghis wrote:Currently the only one in many situations is bring them into a life were they can't be supported and likely turn to a life of crime,
The vast majority of poor people are honest law abiding people. It's interesting that you would support abortion by using a stereotype, that most poor people are likely to be criminals. I'll also add that you don't know who is going to become a criminal. Yet you think it is ok to kill ahead of time to eliminate that potentiality. Don't you see something wrong with that - you're punishing people who aren't even guilty of anything yet. Very "Minority Report"-ish.
What's interesting is if you were a conservative said poor people are likely to be criminals, people would be all over you and rightly so. But use this to justify abortion and you get a pass. Not a peep from anyone here.
Your attempting to put words in my mouth that I did not say. I pointed to a study that point to those in poverty conditions having a higher chance of turning to crime, not that it is 100% or even 50% or even most. The actual percentages wasn't really stated, just that it was across the board world wide. What you are advocating that that a family or single woman that is below the poverty line should be forced to have a child that they can not provide for. I am advocating that they be given the choice. The fact is children die every year to malnutrition and starvation. In 2013, 6.3 million children under the age of 5 died, 45% of those were due to malnutrition. Granted, that is world wide and not just in the US.
I think it should be the right of the parent to decide if they wish to have a child in the conditions in which they live.
Genghis wrote:It would also be interesting to know how many of these staged video recordings had to be done before they got what they wanted. You can find bad actors in any organization if you spend enough time looking.
They didn't find any bad actors. They found people doing their jobs and adhering to the law.
Genghis wrote:Currently the only one in many situations is bring them into a life were they can't be supported and likely turn to a life of crime,
The vast majority of poor people are honest law abiding people. It's interesting that you would support abortion by using a stereotype, that most poor people are likely to be criminals. I'll also add that you don't know who is going to become a criminal. Yet you think it is ok to kill ahead of time to eliminate that potentiality. Don't you see something wrong with that - you're punishing people who aren't even guilty of anything yet. Very "Minority Report"-ish.
What's interesting is if you were a conservative said poor people are likely to be criminals, people would be all over you and rightly so. But use this to justify abortion and you get a pass. Not a peep from anyone here.
Your attempting to put words in my mouth that I did not say. I pointed to a study that point to those in poverty conditions having a higher chance of turning to crime, not that it is 100% or even 50% or even most. The actual percentages wasn't really stated, just that it was across the board world wide. What you are advocating that that a family or single woman that is below the poverty line should be forced to have a child that they can not provide for. I am advocating that they be given the choice. The fact is children die every year to malnutrition and starvation. In 2013, 6.3 million children under the age of 5 died, 45% of those were due to malnutrition. Granted, that is world wide and not just in the US.
I think it should be the right of the parent to decide if they wish to have a child in the conditions in which they live.
Until the day they are born, then you have no say and in fact the government routinely decides they know better about how to raise those kids than you do.
They can't force you to have the kids but they can damn sure force you to give them treatments or care for them in a way they approve of.
Until that day though you can pretty much do any despicable thing you want and no one would care.
Rip wrote:So I wonder how things will change when they identify the gene sequence for homosexuality and people are aborting based on that?
My gut tells me people will be offended and try to stop it from happening.
My gut tells me the discussion will be a broader one about eugenics and it will not be exclusive to abortion to eliminate the gay babies debate. In fact this conversation is already underway, getting broad attention around deaf parents selecting embryos for deafness. And yep, there are people trying to stop deaf parents from purposely having deaf kids and other people trying to stop parents from avoiding having any deaf kids.
Or if I wanted to troll back at you I might say that I bet when the gay gene is sequenced that social conservatives will secretly or maybe even not secretly embrace abortion to kill their filthy gay babies.
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
Enough wrote:
My gut tells me the discussion will be a broader one about eugenics
the eugenics question is one that will come back stronger than ever in the near future. the lure of selecting for 'uberbabies' will prove to be extremely tempting for even anti-embryo tampering mindsets. imagine a baby that can destroy monsters just by crying on it!
Rip wrote:So I wonder how things will change when they identify the gene sequence for homosexuality and people are aborting based on that?
My gut tells me people will be offended and try to stop it from happening.
My gut tells me the discussion will be a broader one about eugenics and it will not be exclusive to abortion to eliminate the gay babies debate. In fact this conversation is already underway, getting broad attention around deaf parents selecting embryos for deafness. And yep, there are people trying to stop deaf parents from purposely having deaf kids and other people trying to stop parents from avoiding having any deaf kids.
Or if I wanted to troll back at you I might say that I bet when the gay gene is sequenced that social conservatives will secretly or maybe even not secretly embrace abortion to kill their filthy gay babies.
That is half my thinking as well. I think we may see conservatives embrace abortion more and liberals embrace it less. For the record I am against it either way, but stop far short of it being illegal. Just frown upon and discourage it.
I don't understand the outrage about this. The tissues would otherwise go to waste and are being used to research cures for deadly diseases. They haven't shown that Planned Parenthood was doing anything other than covering costs. I understand being against abortion, but if abortions are going to take place regardless, this all seems to be a lot of manufactured gnashing of teeth over a whole lot of nothing.
Silly Republicans trying to force drug testing on people receiving gov't handouts, what they should really be requiring is spay and neuter. Greatly reduces the whole abortion problem.
em2nought wrote:Silly Republicans trying to force drug testing on people receiving gov't handouts, what they should really be requiring is spay and neuter. Greatly reduces the whole abortion problem.
So the kids who depend on their parents food stamps to eat should go hungry because mom or dad can't seem to kick the junk?
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
em2nought wrote:Silly Republicans trying to force drug testing on people receiving gov't handouts, what they should really be requiring is spay and neuter. Greatly reduces the whole abortion problem.
So the kids who depend on their parents food stamps to eat should go hungry because mom or dad can't seem to kick the junk?
"The junk"? Are you being poetic, or do you really think em2 is talking about hard drugs?
em2nought wrote:Silly Republicans trying to force drug testing on people receiving gov't handouts, what they should really be requiring is spay and neuter. Greatly reduces the whole abortion problem.
So the kids who depend on their parents food stamps to eat should go hungry because mom or dad can't seem to kick the junk?
I read that a few times, and I don't see how you came away with that. I'm saying that if we essentially "kick them in their junk" by deactivating their private parts, they can't produce more children that they can't or won't take care of. ...and when I say "they" I"m talking about anyone of any race or creed wanting gov't assistance.
My comment was only in reference to the first part of your statement ("Silly Republicans trying to force drug testing on people receiving gov't handouts"). This seemed to indicate your support of mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, something I find to be problematic. I was trying to point out the reason why I find it to be an problem, but apparently didn't do a very good job. I figured the whole spay/neuter thing was just silly nonsense.
So please ignore my stupid thread derail.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
em2nought wrote:Silly Republicans trying to force drug testing on people receiving gov't handouts, what they should really be requiring is spay and neuter. Greatly reduces the whole abortion problem.
So the kids who depend on their parents food stamps to eat should go hungry because mom or dad can't seem to kick the junk?
I read that a few times, and I don't see how you came away with that. I'm saying that if we essentially "kick them in their junk" by deactivating their private parts, they can't produce more children that they can't or won't take care of. ...and when I say "they" I"m talking about anyone of any race or creed wanting gov't assistance.
Does that also apply to corporations taking gov't assistance?
em2nought wrote:Silly Republicans trying to force drug testing on people receiving gov't handouts, what they should really be requiring is spay and neuter. Greatly reduces the whole abortion problem.
So the kids who depend on their parents food stamps to eat should go hungry because mom or dad can't seem to kick the junk?
I read that a few times, and I don't see how you came away with that. I'm saying that if we essentially "kick them in their junk" by deactivating their private parts, they can't produce more children that they can't or won't take care of. ...and when I say "they" I"m talking about anyone of any race or creed wanting gov't assistance.
Does that also apply to corporations taking gov't assistance?
Yes, all corporate officers of said corporation should be spayed and neutered as well if they can't run a corporation without a handout. Don't want more future corporate officers of their ilk.
Skinypupy wrote:My comment was only in reference to the first part of your statement ("Silly Republicans trying to force drug testing on people receiving gov't handouts"). This seemed to indicate your support of mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, something I find to be problematic. I was trying to point out the reason why I find it to be an problem, but apparently didn't do a very good job. I figured the whole spay/neuter thing was just silly nonsense.
So please ignore my stupid thread derail.
By calling them "silly" Republicans I thought I was making it clear that I didn't see drug testing as a good idea. I think we should legalize/tax drugs and let the chips fall personally.
Skinypupy wrote:My comment was only in reference to the first part of your statement ("Silly Republicans trying to force drug testing on people receiving gov't handouts"). This seemed to indicate your support of mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, something I find to be problematic. I was trying to point out the reason why I find it to be an problem, but apparently didn't do a very good job. I figured the whole spay/neuter thing was just silly nonsense.
So please ignore my stupid thread derail.
By calling them "silly" Republicans I thought I was making it clear that I didn't see drug testing as a good idea. I think we should legalize/tax drugs and let the chips fall personally.
Ah, I misunderstood. Carry on.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Skinypupy wrote:My comment was only in reference to the first part of your statement ("Silly Republicans trying to force drug testing on people receiving gov't handouts"). This seemed to indicate your support of mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, something I find to be problematic. I was trying to point out the reason why I find it to be an problem, but apparently didn't do a very good job. I figured the whole spay/neuter thing was just silly nonsense.
So please ignore my stupid thread derail.
By calling them "silly" Republicans I thought I was making it clear that I didn't see drug testing as a good idea. I think we should legalize/tax drugs and let the chips fall personally.
Ah, I misunderstood. Carry on.
Given em2's posting history, I don't think it's abnormal to come to the conclusion you did.
Skinypupy wrote:My comment was only in reference to the first part of your statement ("Silly Republicans trying to force drug testing on people receiving gov't handouts"). This seemed to indicate your support of mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, something I find to be problematic. I was trying to point out the reason why I find it to be an problem, but apparently didn't do a very good job. I figured the whole spay/neuter thing was just silly nonsense.
So please ignore my stupid thread derail.
By calling them "silly" Republicans I thought I was making it clear that I didn't see drug testing as a good idea. I think we should legalize/tax drugs and let the chips fall personally.
Ah, I misunderstood. Carry on.
Given em2's posting history, I don't think it's abnormal to come to the conclusion you did.
Seriously, I'm mostly misunderstood. It all started with a comment about Hispanics where I was trying to say I'd hire them before just about anybody out there, due to their excellent work ethic, and it was taken as meaning the opposite. Granted my writing style is abysmal at best.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans should not use a must-pass government spending bill to defund Planned Parenthood, despite increasing pressure from conservatives who want to use a threat of a shutdown to target the embattled women’s health group.
In a wide-ranging news conference with reporters Thursday, McConnell warned of the consequences for Republicans if the party triggers a government shutdown over a controversial policy dispute, like the GOP did with Obamacare in 2013.
“We’ve been down this path before,” he said. “This is a tactic that’s been tried going back to the ’90s, frequently by Republican majorities that always have the same ending: that the focus is on the fact that the government is shut down, not on what the underlying issue that is being protested is.”
...
The top Senate Republican conveyed a favorite old Kentucky saying: “There’s no education in the second kick of a mule.” And — repeating his mantra shortly after Republicans took the Senate majority last November — McConnell stressed that the GOP majority in Congress will not instigate a government shutdown, nor default on the federal debt.
Rip wrote:If they really need aborted babies for research then they should be given to universities at no cost.
Socialist.
Frankly, is there any surprise that Planned Parenthood is looking to find alternative sources of revenue? Conservative activists have been trying to shut them down and cut off funding for decades.
There is a legitimate research need for stem cell tissue. I recall Planned Parenthood's paperwork includes a consent to dispose of the tissue. There is no story other than it's icky and awkward.
Last edited by Zarathud on Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
42 Splices – According to forensic analysis by Fusion GPS, the first five videos released by Daleiden and CMP, contained 42 splices where sentences were cut and patched to create the appearance of a seamless conversation. By design, these edits changed the meaning of individual sentences as well as the overall conversation. In one example, a Planned Parenthood staffer’s comment about lab protocols was edited to sound like she was talking about abortion procedures. Her words got echoed repeatedly by mainstream media who falsely assumed they knew what she was talking about.
Contradictory Evidence Omitted – In a Colorado interview, a Planned Parenthood employee said 13 times that all fetal tissue donations must be reviewed by attorneys and follow all laws. All 13 times were omitted.
Edits in “Unedited Videos” – The “unedited” videos released along with shorter excerpts were themselves edited, rendering them useless as evidence in legal cases or regulatory hearings...
...Not About Abortion – The CMP smear campaign was designed not to reduce abortion but rather to control who has sex, by heightening the threat of pregnancy and STI’s among young women. Secondarily, it was timed to feed Tea Party Republicans fodder for election campaigns . Since public dollars pay for no abortions, defunding Planned Parenthood would eliminate only their preventive care services, including birth control, with the ironic effect of driving up need and demand for abortion. It is part of a broader anti-birth-control campaign aimed at protecting biblical (Iron Age) family structures and gender roles.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Deliberately falsifying evidence to pursue a political agenda? It's not like this is the first offense....
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
42 Splices – According to forensic analysis by Fusion GPS, the first five videos released by Daleiden and CMP, contained 42 splices where sentences were cut and patched to create the appearance of a seamless conversation. By design, these edits changed the meaning of individual sentences as well as the overall conversation. In one example, a Planned Parenthood staffer’s comment about lab protocols was edited to sound like she was talking about abortion procedures. Her words got echoed repeatedly by mainstream media who falsely assumed they knew what she was talking about.
Contradictory Evidence Omitted – In a Colorado interview, a Planned Parenthood employee said 13 times that all fetal tissue donations must be reviewed by attorneys and follow all laws. All 13 times were omitted.
Edits in “Unedited Videos” – The “unedited” videos released along with shorter excerpts were themselves edited, rendering them useless as evidence in legal cases or regulatory hearings...
...Not About Abortion – The CMP smear campaign was designed not to reduce abortion but rather to control who has sex, by heightening the threat of pregnancy and STI’s among young women. Secondarily, it was timed to feed Tea Party Republicans fodder for election campaigns . Since public dollars pay for no abortions, defunding Planned Parenthood would eliminate only their preventive care services, including birth control, with the ironic effect of driving up need and demand for abortion. It is part of a broader anti-birth-control campaign aimed at protecting biblical (Iron Age) family structures and gender roles.
Who thinks this will get anywhere near the attention the videos got?
Alefroth wrote:
Who thinks this will get anywhere near the attention the videos got?
More interestingly, how's Rip feel about the for profit harvesting of fetuses now?
My feelings on it haven't changed.
Who is Valerie Tarico that I take anything she says as factual or having been written with any kind of impartiality. That is the same lady that wrote something about god "raping" Mary, right? I think some other stuff about The Bible being nothing but a bunch of men sexually abusing women and that it didn't teach disapproval of rape?
That lady is the queen of distorting things in order to align them with her agenda. About the only credibility I could give her is the good ol "takes one to know one".
Lets hear her same some of those things about the Koran. I dare her.
What does the Koran have to do with people editing video to discredit Planned Parenthood? I'm not understanding your tirade. She didn't do the forensics on the tape, so I'm not getting how her stance on religion matters.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
How about an NPR piece, since you're denigrating a source that's analyzing the report from Fusion GPS.
Fusion GPS is based in Washington, DC and provides premium research, strategic intelligence, and due diligence services to corporations, law firms, and investors worldwide.
We offer a cross-disciplinary approach with expertise in media, politics, regulation, national security, and global markets.
gbasden wrote:What does the Koran have to do with people editing video to discredit Planned Parenthood? I'm not understanding your tirade. She didn't do the forensics on the tape, so I'm not getting how her stance on religion matters.
