Planned Parenthood VP refuses to say if abortion kills a human

[redleghunter]

Planned Parenthood VP refuses to say if abortion kills a human

Interesting exchange Tucker Carlson has with Planned Parenthood executive vice president.

Excerpt then video:

March 14, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – During an interview with FOX News' Tucker Carlson, the executive vice president of Planned Parenthood repeatedly refused to answer whether abortion ends a life.

Carlson pressed Dawn Laguens about her thoughts on abortion extinguishing a fetal heartbeat and whether a fetus whose sex is different from his mother's is part of the mother's body. She didn't answer Carlson's questions directly, instead repeating unrelated pro-abortion talking points.

"If you can hear the fetal heartbeat, and then it’s extinguished, what do you think of that? Is that a big deal or not to you? And if not, why not?" asked Carlson.

"Well, I take seriously all of the healthcare work that we provide at Planned Parenthood," Laguens replied. "I believe in safe, legal abortion. I believe it’s up to each woman and individual."

WATCH: Planned Parenthood VP refuses to say if abortion kills a human

 

[EmmaCat]

I don't go to PP. I have doctors who do my female stuff.

I was a viable fetus at 5 1/2 weeks!

 

[Cimorene]

She was very patient & diplomatic with him! Thanks for sharing the video.

 

[Wolfe]

"it's a right here in america"

 

[Mountainmike]

You are not even allowed to say so in France now.

In a gross attack on free speech, you are only allowed to present abortion positively,

Planned Parenthood VP refuses to say if abortion kills a human

Interesting exchange Tucker Carlson has with Planned Parenthood executive vice president.

Excerpt then video:

March 14, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – During an interview with FOX News' Tucker Carlson, the executive vice president of Planned Parenthood repeatedly refused to answer whether abortion ends a life.

Carlson pressed Dawn Laguens about her thoughts on abortion extinguishing a fetal heartbeat and whether a fetus whose sex is different from his mother's is part of the mother's body. She didn't answer Carlson's questions directly, instead repeating unrelated pro-abortion talking points.

"If you can hear the fetal heartbeat, and then it’s extinguished, what do you think of that? Is that a big deal or not to you? And if not, why not?" asked Carlson.

"Well, I take seriously all of the healthcare work that we provide at Planned Parenthood," Laguens replied. "I believe in safe, legal abortion. I believe it’s up to each woman and individual."

WATCH: Planned Parenthood VP refuses to say if abortion kills a human

 

[imind]

In a gross attack on free speech, you are only allowed to present abortion positively,

i'm guessing this is a bit of an embellishment...citation?

 

[Jeepneytravel]

Does this make you all feel good, to know our tax dollars are going to organizations such as these encouraging and carrying out the murder of millions of babies? What a cruel, barbaric, heathen society we live in....I will be glad to see God destroy these evil monsters.

 

[Cimorene]

Does this make you all feel good, to know our tax dollars are going to organizations such as these encouraging and carrying out the murder of millions of babies? What a cruel, barbaric, heathen society we live in....I will be glad to see God destroy these evil monsters.

Taxpayer $ aren't used to fund abortions. PP only gets reimbursed for healthcare they provide like cancer screenings. Idk if you were being serious or satirical though.

 

[Mountainmike]

i'm guessing this is a bit of an embellishment...citation?

I jest not.

The so called " digital interference bill" passed in Dec 2016 that makes It a criminal offence to:

" exert psychological or moral pressure " against women considering an abortion.
Look it up.

And examples cited were regarding abortion as killing or murdering life, showing any representation of the nasty bloody mess that is abortion, or hinting at later psychological consequences for the mothers,

Since ALL advertising seeks to exert conscious or subconscious psychological pressure, ( see psychology of influence , cialdini, the basis of all advertising ) and any argument from religion is in essence moral : it has criminalised any effective opposition to abortion.

In short an attack on free speech.

So you can express opposition to it, but not give any of the obvious reasons.
Meanwhile abortion clinics can present their disgraceful perversion of all that is good, and paint happy smiley faces on the Pictures of victims as they always have. the business of murder against the weakest of human life, Must now be booming in France.

 

[redleghunter]

She was very patient & diplomatic with him! Thanks for sharing the video.

She had the precision and compassion of Josef Mengele.

 

[Cimorene]

She had the precision and compassion of Josef Mengele.

That's so hyperbolic & ridiculous the only logical response is to LOL. You've basically Godwinned your thread.

 

[redleghunter]

That's so hyperbolic & ridiculous the only logical response is to LOL. You've basically Godwinned your thread.

No laughing matter.

Abortion has killed over 55 million healthy human lives.

I don't expect you to find that shocking given your flippant responses on abortion threads.

The PP VP clearly did not care human beings with a heartbeat were snuffed out and called them choices. Does that not concern you?

In the story of Cinderella, if the shoe fits, wear it. Meaning the PP VP fits well into the apathetic shoes of Mengele.

Godwin is not my master. Godwin's law is lazy debating techniques by some liberals who don't want to debate facts. As a matter of fact the left has suspended Godwin's law for the next 4 maybe 8 years.

Godwin's Law officially suspended for the duration of the 2016 presidential cycle

The shoe fits.

 

[Cimorene]

No laughing matter.

Abortion has killed over 55 million healthy human lives.

I don't expect you to find that shocking given your flippant responses on abortion threads.

The PP VP clearly did not care human beings with a heartbeat were snuffed out and called them choices. Does that not concern you?

In the story of Cinderella, if the shoe fits, wear it. Meaning the PP VP fits well into the apathetic shoes of Mengele.

Godwin is not my master. Godwin's law is lazy debating techniques by some liberals who don't want to debate facts. As a matter of fact the left has suspended Godwin's law for the next 4 maybe 8 years.

Godwin's Law officially suspended for the duration of the 2016 presidential cycle

The shoe fits.

Your shoe might fit you well, but don't apply for a job working at a shoe store anytime soon bc you're not great at fitting shoes on others. I was laughing about your hyperbolism, not the topic. I've never been flippant about abortion, but I have been about hyperbolic posts that do nothing to contribute to an intelligent conversation. I'm not pro-abortion or a liberal, either. Not everyone who disagrees with you is, though that's become typically lazy assumption. The woman was an invited guest on the show, & she handled herself with grace & dignity while Tucker acted like a 5th grader.

ETA - that article you shared is hilarious. Thanks. I don't think you're using it the way you intend to though, bc it's doing the total opposite of what I think you were going for.

 

[SnowyMacie]

1) Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.
2) The question is he asking is actually way more complicated that it seems, which is one of the reasons why I'm never comfortable where I land on the abortion issue, but anyway she did answer the question. "I believe it’s up to each woman and individual" is answering the question. What she is saying is that it is not her decision to make, her opinion does not matter because it is each woman's choice and opinion is the one the matters. That's what pro-choice ultimately is, it is not promoting abortion, it is nothing more than allowing the woman to have the choice.

I was a viable fetus at 5 1/2 weeks!

So, you were able to survive outside the womb before your lungs, liver, intestine, or even a full heart had developed and you were less than an inch in length?

 

[redleghunter]

1) Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.
2) The question is he asking is actually way more complicated that it seems, which is one of the reasons why I'm never comfortable where I land on the abortion issue, but anyway she did answer the question. "I believe it’s up to each woman and individual" is answering the question. What she is saying is that it is not her decision to make, her opinion does not matter because it is each woman's choice and opinion is the one the matters. That's what pro-choice ultimately is, it is not promoting abortion, it is nothing more than allowing the woman to have the choice.



So, you were able to survive outside the womb before your lungs, liver, intestine, or even a full heart had developed and you were less than an inch in length?

I don't think Tucker asked a complicated question.

Perhaps it might be complicated to comprehend if one does not govern their lives by some basic principles.

Tucker presented a fetus at 5 1/2 weeks has a heart beat, pumping blood, could have different blood type and sex.

He simply asked "what is 'it'." Is it like a cancer tumor, a distinct human life?

Those are fair questions. The PP VP answered with the company talking points---it's a choice. Which is an answer but did not address the line of inquiry. So we got the PP answer, which is it is only a life if the pregnant woman deems it so. I'll ask you as a Christian. Does that not concern you?

Anyone with a day in Washington politics knows if you are going on Tucker's show, you come to debate. His show is dedicated to getting participants who are there to debate issues. He is the same Tucker no matter the leanings of the guest.

That's what pro-choice ultimately is, it is not promoting abortion, it is nothing more than allowing the woman to have the choice.

Therefore, this means having the choice between life and death over another human being. Again, as a Christian who hails from an historic and traditional background do you not see a problem with this view?

Don't you see such a view as dispassionate? Apathetic?

 

[SnowyMacie]

I don't think Tucker asked a complicated question.

Perhaps it might be complicated to comprehend if one does not govern their lives by some basic principles.

Tucker presented a fetus at 5 1/2 weeks has a heart beat, pumping blood, could have different blood type and sex.

He simply asked "what is 'it'." Is it like a cancer tumor, a distinct human life?

Those are fair questions. The PP VP answered with the company talking points---it's a choice. Which is an answer but did not address the line of inquiry. So we got the PP answer, which is it is only a life if the pregnant woman deems it so. I'll ask you as a Christian. Does that not concern you?

The nature of viability, independent life, etc. is a complicated issue so by nature any question about it is a complicated issue. The question of "It is like a cancer tumor or a distinct human life?" is not really the right to question to be asking. The right question is "does the unborn child have the same rights as the mother, specifically, does the unborn child's right to life supersede the right of the mother to bodily independence?" A baby has zero chance of surviving until about 20 weeks into pregnancy, and are only given a 50% chance at 23 weeks. This is even with all of our intensive medical care, in fact, we haven't really improved our ability to do so in over a decade even though medical technology is still advancing. This causes people to be hesitant to say that an unborn child that is completely biologically dependent on it's mother for survival (I'm not talking about how babies need to be fed and such, the mother does not have to do that) has the same rights as a born child. Imagine that you woke up to find yourself medically attached to someone else without your consent, and you must remain attached to them for nine months until they can heal, otherwise they will die. Sure, that person has the right to live, but does their right to live supersede your right to bodily independence? We could all probably agree on what the most Christian choice in the matter would be, but that's what pro-choice is: A woman has the right to choose what to do with her body, and that right supersedes her unborn child's right to life because of the unborn child is completely dependent on her body for survival.

Therefore, this means having the choice between life and death over another human being. Again, as a Christian who hails from an historic and traditional background do you not see a problem with this view?

Don't you see such a view as dispassionate? Apathetic?

Like I said, I'm not comfortable with anywhere I land when I dive into this issue. I am fully against abortion, but at the same time, I can't ignore the fact that outlawing abortion completely is just going cause desperate women to make desperate choices that not only endanger the life of their unborn child, but themselves as well. I've yet to see any politician or organization come up with a solution that I can truly get behind and say "yes, that's what we need to do!".

 

[brinny]

You are not even allowed to say so in France now.

In a gross attack on free speech, you are only allowed to present abortion positively,

I remember reading this.

God have mercy.

Praying.

 

[brinny]

I jest not.

The so called " digital interference bill" passed in Dec 2016 that makes It a criminal offence to:

" exert psychological or moral pressure " against women considering an abortion.
Look it up.

And examples cited were regarding abortion as killing or murdering life, showing any representation of the nasty bloody mess that is abortion, or hinting at later psychological consequences for the mothers,

Since ALL advertising seeks to exert conscious or subconscious psychological pressure, ( see psychology of influence , cialdini, the basis of all advertising ) and any argument from religion is in essence moral : it has criminalised any effective opposition to abortion.

In short an attack on free speech.

So you can express opposition to it, but not give any of the obvious reasons.
Meanwhile abortion clinics can present their disgraceful perversion of all that is good, and paint happy smiley faces on the Pictures of victims as they always have. the business of murder against the weakest of human life, Must now be booming in France.

God help us.

 

[redleghunter]

The nature of viability, independent life, etc. is a complicated issue so by nature any question about it is a complicated issue. The question of "It is like a cancer tumor or a distinct human life?" is not really the right to question to be asking. The right question is "does the unborn child have the same rights as the mother, specifically, does the unborn child's right to life supersede the right of the mother to bodily independence?" A baby has zero chance of surviving until about 20 weeks into pregnancy, and are only given a 50% chance at 23 weeks. This is even with all of our intensive medical care, in fact, we haven't really improved our ability to do so in over a decade even though medical technology is still advancing. This causes people to be hesitant to say that an unborn child that is completely biologically dependent on it's mother for survival (I'm not talking about how babies need to be fed and such, the mother does not have to do that) has the same rights as a born child. Imagine that you woke up to find yourself medically attached to someone else without your consent, and you must remain attached to them for nine months until they can heal, otherwise they will die. Sure, that person has the right to live, but does their right to live supersede your right to bodily independence? We could all probably agree on what the most Christian choice in the matter would be, but that's what pro-choice is: A woman has the right to choose what to do with her body, and that right supersedes her unborn child's right to life because of the unborn child is completely dependent on her body for survival.




Like I said, I'm not comfortable with anywhere I land when I dive into this issue. I am fully against abortion, but at the same time, I can't ignore the fact that outlawing abortion completely is just going cause desperate women to make desperate choices that not only endanger the life of their unborn child, but themselves as well. I've yet to see any politician or organization come up with a solution that I can truly get behind and say "yes, that's what we need to do!".

Thank you for your response. It is an uncomfortable topic. Probably for you and me as Christians we realize there is a human life from conception. That's not a theological or emotional reaction but quite frankly settled science.

Therefore, we know what is conceived is a human being.

Your point is you consider the woman's choice potentially supercedes a human being developing inside her. A distinct human being. Would that not make the human being developing inside the woman a lesser life? Subhuman?

We already know biologically such life is a human being of the species Homo Sapien within the woman.

I acknowledge your point of constitutional rights not extended to the fetus, but there is an inconsistency in that. If a woman was driving to an abortion clinic to exercise her right to privacy, and is then hit by a drunk driver, if she survives but the fetus within her is killed, most states would prosecute the drunk driver under fetal homicide or manslaughter charges.

If the woman arrives safely to the abortion clinic it is called a choice. As Christians how do we reconcile such Biblically, according to catechism, or church history?

Back to Tucker. He did not appeal to religion. He simply asked if the "it" in the womb was not human what is 'it?'

The answer was "a choice."

That should not only concern Christians but all people.

 

[brinny]

The nature of viability, independent life, etc. is a complicated issue so by nature any question about it is a complicated issue. The question of "It is like a cancer tumor or a distinct human life?" is not really the right to question to be asking. The right question is "does the unborn child have the same rights as the mother, specifically, does the unborn child's right to life supersede the right of the mother to bodily independence?" A baby has zero chance of surviving until about 20 weeks into pregnancy, and are only given a 50% chance at 23 weeks. This is even with all of our intensive medical care, in fact, we haven't really improved our ability to do so in over a decade even though medical technology is still advancing. This causes people to be hesitant to say that an unborn child that is completely biologically dependent on it's mother for survival (I'm not talking about how babies need to be fed and such, the mother does not have to do that) has the same rights as a born child. Imagine that you woke up to find yourself medically attached to someone else without your consent, and you must remain attached to them for nine months until they can heal, otherwise they will die. Sure, that person has the right to live, but does their right to live supersede your right to bodily independence? We could all probably agree on what the most Christian choice in the matter would be, but that's what pro-choice is: A woman has the right to choose what to do with her body, and that right supersedes her unborn child's right to life because of the unborn child is completely dependent on her body for survival.




Like I said, I'm not comfortable with anywhere I land when I dive into this issue. I am fully against abortion, but at the same time, I can't ignore the fact that outlawing abortion completely is just going cause desperate women to make desperate choices that not only endanger the life of their unborn child, but themselves as well. I've yet to see any politician or organization come up with a solution that I can truly get behind and say "yes, that's what we need to do!".

It's about a bottom line of snuffing out a life or not. Anything else is peripheral. That li'l life in question, as far as i'm concerned, shall be protected from any harm regardless of the philosophical arguments and opinions going on, on the sidelines.

It is a matter of life or death.

May we have the heart to hear all those who cannot speak out for nor defend themselves, and speak out on their behalf.

God help us. Oh God, help us.