Abortion Discussion

[PapaZoom]

Here's a link I'm sure will impress you as much as the link from Media Matters impresses me.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/pages/static/media_matters_facts


Rush is far from trustworthy. There's even a "Christians Against Lies on Fox News Channel and Rush Limbaugh" Facebook group.

And then there's:

http://www.alternet.org/election-20...more-big-lies-rush-limbaugh-democratic-voters

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/07/28/rush-limbaugh-world-lies-crashing-down.html

http://limbaughbook.blogspot.com/2011/03/limbaughs-lies-of-week.html

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/26/rus...of_stuffing_that_turns_villains_into_victims/

I posted only to show how silly it is to post Media Matters as a reference. I don't bother reading anything by them. I'm guessing you don't take Rush seriously either. Well that's my take on MM.

I noticed you didn't have anything to say about the fact that PP supports the idea of allowing babies born alive being left to die. So if the baby is fully separated from the mother and is born alive in a failed and botched abortion attempt, even though the woman is no longer pregnant, there are those that say the BABY should be left to die. Instead of responding to this FACT you post a link by MM.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I posted only to show how silly it is to post Media Matters as a reference. I don't bother reading anything by them. I'm guessing you don't take Rush seriously either. Well that's my take on MM.

I don't take Rush seriously because he's been shown to be a liar.

I noticed you didn't have anything to say about the fact that PP supports the idea of allowing babies born alive being left to die. So if the baby is fully separated from the mother and is born alive in a failed and botched abortion attempt, even though the woman is no longer pregnant, there are those that say the BABY should be left to die. Instead of responding to this FACT you post a link by MM.

So you're saying that it's a fact that Planned Parenthood as an organization does this? Do you have proof of this?

 

[SteveB28]

education vs indoctrination....perspective is important here....
as far as garbage I suggest you keep it "outside".....

No, lets air the garbage.

Papal encyclicals, Abstinence Only, any number of religious figures decrying the instruction of youth in sexual matters.

All garbage.

 

[SteveB28]

You could not be more wrong! Take the case of the seventh commandment which forbids sex outside of marriage. The sexual revolution of the sixties produced the need to legalize abortion, and the result has been the massive slaughter of nearly sixty million innocent unborn children.

And you want be to believe that our human laws are superior to the laws given by Almighty God?

Perhaps you should check your numbers. Abortion numbers have been significant for over a century. The so-called sexual revolution was not a major factor in abortion numbers.

Try to be accurate.

 

[SteveB28]

You could not be more wrong! Take the case of the seventh commandment which forbids sex outside of marriage. The sexual revolution of the sixties produced the need to legalize abortion, and the result has been the massive slaughter of nearly sixty million innocent unborn children.

And you want be to believe that our human laws are superior to the laws given by Almighty God?

Human laws are superior for the simple reason that they are the only ones that exist!

 

[Archivist]

One published when abortion was still illegal.

Then you won't mind identifying the dictionary.

 

[KCfromNC]

You did not answer the question I noticed.....not surprised......

Perhaps you should try reading for comprehension. You asked where I got an idea from. I told you. No liking the answer is not the same as not getting one.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't know any Catholic who thinks a woman shouldn't enjoy sex. That's a straw man as far as I'm concerned.

Then what's the problem with using birth control to enjoy sex without unwanted consequences? I'd think that someone so opposed to abortion would be very happy to see people use less drastic options.

Regarding cute babies, are you going to start judging people by what they consider cute?

No, just pointing out that many anti-abortion arguments are simplistic appeals to emotion which ignore the real complexities of the issue. It is one of the many reasons that these ideas lead to bad public policy.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's a civil justice hearing on Planned Parenthood. Also is an undercover video of Planned Parenthood and their policy to let a baby just die on the table if it is born alive in a botched abortion.

Is that a video from the guy indicted for a felony charge of attempting to buy human organs, or is it from some other anti-abortion propaganda group?

 

[KCfromNC]

Media Matters. Such a trustworthy unbiased source of information.

I know I'll regret asking, but do you actually have any evidence of any of this alleged dishonesty?

 

[Archivist]

Post'em.....

Here are a few examples. A google search will find many more:

"Additionally, Caucasians and Hispanics are consistently preferred to African-Americans. The probability that a non-African-American baby will attract the interest of an adoptive parent is at least seven times as high as the corresponding probability for an African-American baby."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/black-babies-boys-less-likely-to-be-adopted/?_r=0


"While the number of African-American children in the foster care system has decreased between 2001 and 2011, the rate at which they exit the system has not. Studies show that African-American children who come into contact with the child welfare system are disproportionately represented in foster care, and are less likely than children of other racial and ethnic groups to move to permanent placement. Furthermore African-American children account for 15% of the U.S. child population but, as of September 2011, were 27% of the 400,540 children in foster care and have lower rates of adoption than those of other races and ethnicities."

http://www.nbcsl.org/public-policy/...ren-addressing-adoption-rates-for-blacks.html


"The real world, it appears, is a far cry from Arnold, Willis and Mr. Drummond of Diff’rent Strokes fame, or the cases of wealthy celebrities who adopt African babies— whether out of the goodness of their heart, as a political statement, for use as fashion accessories, or to generate positive publicity. And in many ways, we should not be surprised, because this is America. This is a society that still equates blackness with inferiority and criminality, even if the president is black."

http://thegrio.com/2010/04/29/black-children-left-behind-in-adoption-market/


"My sister has been looking to adopt for a while now so we've been talking about adoption in general for some time. Over several conversations and research it became clear just how disproportionate the numbers of unadopted black children are."

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-so-few-African-American-children-get-adopted


"Of the children receiving no applications, 26.6 percent are Caucasian, while 51.2 percent are African American. Of the children receiving five or more applications, 50.4 percent are Caucasian, while only 22.9 percent are African American."

http://people.hss.caltech.edu/~lyariv/papers/Adoption.pdf

 

[Archivist]

It's clear that another human being is being killed and that another human being is being denied any bodily rights.

And what about the pregnant woman's bodily rights? I keep offering the example of a rape victim being forced into involuntary servitude to carry a fetus following a sexual act in which she was not a willing participant.

 

[AirPo]

There is no justification to deliberately take the life of another human being for convenience sake. Either way, the bodily rights argument is violated.

Argumentum nu uh is a logical fallacy. The choice of the word violated to argue against allowing a pregnant rape victem to chose for herself noted.
And the homo erotic imagry in the sig is noted.

 

[AirPo]

You simply don't understand....which is not surprising....

The projection in this post is very easy to understand and not at all surprising.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Perhaps you should try reading for comprehension. You asked where I got an idea from. I told you. No liking the answer is not the same as not getting one.

So, your "source" really was just your own opinion....I thought as much....

 

[PapaZoom]

I don't take Rush seriously because he's been shown to be a liar.
So you're saying that it's a fact that Planned Parenthood as an organization does this? Do you have proof of this?

I never listen to Rush. I simply picked him to illustrate the point that using him as a reference is on the same level as using Media Matters.

Proof? Did you not hear the words of the Planned Parenthood exec as she stood before a committee of Congress? She was asked what is the position of PP if a baby is born in an abortion attempt but the abortion fails and the baby is fully born. So the baby is on the table, separated from its mother. The mother can no longer claim bodily rights because she's no longer pregnant. The baby is alive. But without care, all babies born will die if left unattended.

When asked what is the position of PP in these situations the PP Exec said that it's up to the mother and her doctor.

What? She's no longer pregnant. The baby is alive and fully born. And PP's position is the simply let the doctor and the mother decide if the baby should now live or die. If it's to live, they attend to it like they would in all births. If it's to die, they just leave it to die. Unattended. These facts were presented in the video and came from the mouth of the PP exec! Yet you want proof. This is how I see pro abortionists work all the time. The evidence is right before their eyes and they ignore what they see and ask an unrelated question.

 

[PapaZoom]

Is that a video from the guy indicted for a felony charge of attempting to buy human organs, or is it from some other anti-abortion propaganda group?

What difference does it make if what you see implicates PP in a horrible practice? Not only that, the video of the hearing before members of Congress is NOT under cover video. And it clearly shows a PP exec saying that even if a baby is born alive, it's up to the mother and the doctor to decide if it should continue to live. This does not bother you?

 

[PapaZoom]

And what about the pregnant woman's bodily rights? I keep offering the example of a rape victim being forced into involuntary servitude to carry a fetus following a sexual act in which she was not a willing participant.

You don't kill another human being in the name of your own bodily rights. There are two bodies involved here. You're apparently only interested in one and not the other.

 

[Archivist]

You don't kill another human being in the name of your own bodily rights. There are two bodies involved here. You're apparently only interested in one and not the other.

In the case of a rape victim, it is the pregnant woman's body that has been violated. If she wants to carry the fetus to term that is her choice. If she is forced to carry the fetus to term against her will that is involuntary servitude, a violation of her Constitutional rights.

I have asked this before but have yet to receive an answer: Do you favoir involuntay servitude in other cases, or just in cases involving rape victims?

 

[AirPo]

What difference does it make if what you see implicates PP in a horrible practice? Not only that, the video of the hearing before members of Congress is NOT under cover video. And it clearly shows a PP exec saying that even if a baby is born alive, it's up to the mother and the doctor to decide if it should continue to live. This does not bother you?

The difference is that the video that's been floating around is a fabrication to make people believe that PP is in a horrible practice. If that is the video that you are talking about, you've been duped.