nightflight
Veteran
- Mar 13, 2006
- 9,221
- 2,655
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Missouri finds no wrongdoing in its Planned Parenthood investigation
- Thread starter SummerMadness
- Start date
iluvatar5150
Well-Known Member
- Aug 3, 2012
- 25,324
- 24,243
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
So you have time to argue about it on the internet, saying that nobody has provided any evidence, but you don't have time to go watch the videos (at least the first couple) for yourself to see the evidence that everyone else is pointing you to?
I'm calling shenanigans. I don't believe you want to see the evidence. I think you're being just as disingenuous as the video editors. If you wanted to see the evidence, and if you wanted to know the truth, you would've watched at least one of the videos for yourself at some point in the last couple months instead of wasting an even greater amount of time complaining about its detractors.
Upvote
0
Do you have any particular objections to their interpretation or do you agree with their analysis?
You've already read it. Several times. What more are you looking for?
You just said you read an article where someone did. Now you're saying no one can. Please pick a story and stick to it.
This is a common problem with people trying to rationalize their beliefs. It is easy to make up claims to counter individual points. The harder part is finding a consistent story to eliminate all of the facts that go against what people wish were true. We have that problem here with a lack of consistency - claiming that no one can articulate a response after saying that you've read the response and at the same time agreeing with the points raised but finding them irrelevant. Instead of a coherent story there's just random made up objections which contradict each other.
Where did I say anything about CNN? Did you mean to respond to someone else?
How many lies do we have to identify before you stop trusting the edited videos?
It isn't particularly serious. Advocacy groups make up nonsense like this all the time. No point in caring about this any more than people who think that Obama is a Muslim or whatever crazy conspiracy theories the right is following this week.
Anyway, my response is that a number of different independent groups have investigated the videos and PP and found that a) PP isn't guilty of any wrongdoing and b) the videos were demonstrated to be deceptive. If you know something that they don't, feel free to present it.
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
PP doesn't need to sell baby body parts, they make loads of money scamming Medicaid. They got caught in Texas because of whistleblower information. Other states just look the other way. Medicaid fraud is rampant.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...hefty-settlement-in-texas-medicaid-fraud-case
http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...hefty-settlement-in-texas-medicaid-fraud-case
Upvote
0
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...arenthood_video_gop_debate_fact_checking.html
(my emphasis)
(my emphasis)
the following exchange with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday:
Wallace: Do you acknowledge what every fact-checker has found, that as horrific as that scene is, it was only described on the video by someone who claimed to have seen it? There is no actual footage of the incident that you just mentioned.
Fiorina: No, I don’t accept that at all, I’ve seen the footage. And I find it amazing, actually, that all these supposed fact-checkers in the mainstream media claim this doesn’t exist. They’re trying to attack the authenticity of the videotape.
Indeed, even Fiorina’s super-PAC’s effort to manipulate the grossly manipulated and misleading Center for Medical Progress videos—videos that have been conclusively debunked—with its own YouTube version of the Fiorina claims surprised me. The video uses spliced footage from the Grantham Collection, an unsourced image of a stillborn, and a CMP image of a Pennsylvania woman’s stillborn baby, used without her permission.
Actually, the very meta nature of the enterprise stunned me—trying to doctor doctored videotapes and still failing to produce an image that corresponds to Fiorina’s narrative. It’s truthiness elevated to almost cosmic levels.
This is an extraordinary moment in the annals of political deception.
Nobody—not even Fiorina’s staunchest defenders—can say that these videos that clearly don’t exist are real. Even one of the most brazen defenders of the imaginary videos, Jonah Goldberg, opens with this concession to the petty, mewling fact-checkers: “[T]hey have a point. The exact scene, exactly as Fiorina describes it, is not on the videos.”
Wallace: Do you acknowledge what every fact-checker has found, that as horrific as that scene is, it was only described on the video by someone who claimed to have seen it? There is no actual footage of the incident that you just mentioned.
Fiorina: No, I don’t accept that at all, I’ve seen the footage. And I find it amazing, actually, that all these supposed fact-checkers in the mainstream media claim this doesn’t exist. They’re trying to attack the authenticity of the videotape.
Indeed, even Fiorina’s super-PAC’s effort to manipulate the grossly manipulated and misleading Center for Medical Progress videos—videos that have been conclusively debunked—with its own YouTube version of the Fiorina claims surprised me. The video uses spliced footage from the Grantham Collection, an unsourced image of a stillborn, and a CMP image of a Pennsylvania woman’s stillborn baby, used without her permission.
Actually, the very meta nature of the enterprise stunned me—trying to doctor doctored videotapes and still failing to produce an image that corresponds to Fiorina’s narrative. It’s truthiness elevated to almost cosmic levels.
This is an extraordinary moment in the annals of political deception.
Nobody—not even Fiorina’s staunchest defenders—can say that these videos that clearly don’t exist are real. Even one of the most brazen defenders of the imaginary videos, Jonah Goldberg, opens with this concession to the petty, mewling fact-checkers: “[T]hey have a point. The exact scene, exactly as Fiorina describes it, is not on the videos.”
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
RE: "Body Parts" AKA fetal tissue...
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/08/13/3691269/fetal-tissue-moral-case/ (emphasis mine)
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/08/13/3691269/fetal-tissue-moral-case/ (emphasis mine)
In an editorial published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, lawyer and bioethicist Alta Charo, who’s currently affiliated with the University of Wisconsin-Madison, lays out a strong case for fetal tissue research from a moral perspective.
According to Charo, it’s morally wrong to oppose fetal tissue research because that opposition stands in the way of scientific developments that have saved millions of lives.
“Virtually every person in this country has benefited from research using fetal tissue,” Charo writes. “Every child who’s been spared the risks and misery of chickenpox, rubella, or polio can thank the Nobel Prize recipients and other scientists who used such tissue in research yielding the vaccines that protect us (and give even the unvaccinated the benefit of herd immunity). This work has been going on for nearly a century, and the vaccines it produced have been in use nearly as long. Any discussion of the ethics of fetal tissue research must begin with its unimpeachable claim to have saved the lives and health of millions of people.”
Ironically, some of the advances in vaccines that Charo references have helped protect unborn children in the womb. Before fetal tissue helped develop an effective vaccine against rubella, for instance, this infection caused 5,000 miscarriages each year.
According to Charo, it’s morally wrong to oppose fetal tissue research because that opposition stands in the way of scientific developments that have saved millions of lives.
“Virtually every person in this country has benefited from research using fetal tissue,” Charo writes. “Every child who’s been spared the risks and misery of chickenpox, rubella, or polio can thank the Nobel Prize recipients and other scientists who used such tissue in research yielding the vaccines that protect us (and give even the unvaccinated the benefit of herd immunity). This work has been going on for nearly a century, and the vaccines it produced have been in use nearly as long. Any discussion of the ethics of fetal tissue research must begin with its unimpeachable claim to have saved the lives and health of millions of people.”
Ironically, some of the advances in vaccines that Charo references have helped protect unborn children in the womb. Before fetal tissue helped develop an effective vaccine against rubella, for instance, this infection caused 5,000 miscarriages each year.
Upvote
0
PP doesn't need the funds if Obamacare is a success. It just doesn't. Times have changed since the law has been passed.
My daughter's friend whom has got care from PP - not abortions just care - was asked for insurance coverage since the law was passed. I told her to apply for it, because her mother was/is a freak - and having a 'home' was dependent on if her mother's boyfriend wanted her there was a factor(Otherwise insurance from mom's job was present). Thankfully she listened. PP used her Obamacare to pay for her service, and sadly she was found with cancer. She was moved on to other facilities that used that same insurance to deal with that. My kids are older so we aren't talking young teens here.
The point being PP used the Obamacare to pay for her to get checkups - paps and such. The rest they refer you to other places, and that wasn't true once upon a time. It is now.
We do need to take that into a discussion today. We have so many other issues that AREN'T covered enough by our taxes, and PP does have supporters despite the fact they take insurance like any doctor's office.
Why are people not talking about that fact?
My daughter's friend whom has got care from PP - not abortions just care - was asked for insurance coverage since the law was passed. I told her to apply for it, because her mother was/is a freak - and having a 'home' was dependent on if her mother's boyfriend wanted her there was a factor(Otherwise insurance from mom's job was present). Thankfully she listened. PP used her Obamacare to pay for her service, and sadly she was found with cancer. She was moved on to other facilities that used that same insurance to deal with that. My kids are older so we aren't talking young teens here.
The point being PP used the Obamacare to pay for her to get checkups - paps and such. The rest they refer you to other places, and that wasn't true once upon a time. It is now.
We do need to take that into a discussion today. We have so many other issues that AREN'T covered enough by our taxes, and PP does have supporters despite the fact they take insurance like any doctor's office.
Why are people not talking about that fact?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Actually, it is an accounting issue. The fee is 'shipping and handling', and not a price for goods.
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
In today's mass market many products are "free", for a 'small shipping and handling fee' that actually contains a huge profit for the giverawayer.
In the case of baby body parts the 'handling' part of the fee is based on the supply, the demand, and the difficulty of obtaining the part. In other words the 'shipping and handling' fee is market driven, thus making it a 'sale'.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
giverawayer
I have to applaud you for that word
It still comes down to accounting, and there is no price affixed to the goods. It is free.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
