Planned Parenthood Target Of New Undercover Sting?

I have no interest in telling someone what they can/can't do with their body.

However, like the individuals in question, I have no reluctance to are really talking about the "ethics" of PP.

What you're seeing is the willingness of an organization to provide pregnancy termination,
simply because someone doesn't want a male or female baby. (genocide, if you ask me ---
the act of killing something/someone, simply because you don't like what you see in the genes).

Is it legal? The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the legality of terminating a pregnancy. I don't really see any information that would change the Court's opinion on that matter.

The "research" will likely suggest that PP is happy to support genocide (misogyny if you prefer) if it advances their business interests. Ironic, given that "family planning" is supposed to be about supporting women.

Is it ethical?
I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to conclude that the answer to that one is "no." I am happy to support people in their efforts to expose these questionable ethics.

The conundrum is that you really can't legislate ethics --- so I'm not entirely sure what kind of service the individuals in question think they're providing. I'll admit - it does expose some really disturbing contradictions (which I happen to think ought to be exposed). Even so, we're not really talking about something that anyone can really change.

So the law of our land does not deserve your respect, PrintSmith? Apparently you respect the Supreme Court as much as you respect women - not at all. Your OPINION is built upon your religious beliefs. I respect your right to have your religious beliefs, even though you do not grant the same courtesy and respect to others. So YOU and ONLY YOU are right, eh? Everyone with differing opinions (including the Supreme Court) are WRONG? Thank you for confirming my assertion that you are an arrogant.blowhard with NO respect for your neighbor's rights to live as they choose. You claim to uphold the concept of personal liberty, then DEMAND everyone live by YOUR moral code! That makes you a hypocrite AND liar. You're disgusting.

And nobody, AS YET, has EVER proved that PP has terminated a pregnancy just because the sex of the fetus was the deciding issue. So unless you have something other than some alleged anecdotal screed from some antiabortion source as PROOF, it's just another red herring.

"...will likely suggest that PP is happy to support genocide" WILL LIKELY SUGGEST? So, as usual, you're pulling an assumption out of the usual body orifice.

Source? Link?

plaidvillain wrote: So the law of our land does not deserve your respect, PrintSmith? Apparently you respect the Supreme Court as much as you respect women - not at all. Your OPINION is built upon your religious beliefs. I respect your right to have your religious beliefs, even though you do not grant the same courtesy and respect to others. So YOU and ONLY YOU are right, eh? Everyone with differing opinions (including the Supreme Court) are WRONG? Thank you for confirming my assertion that you are an arrogant blowhard with NO respect for your neighbor's rights to live as they choose. You claim to uphold the concept of personal liberty, then DEMAND everyone live by YOUR moral code! That makes you a hypocrite AND liar. You're disgusting.

Well said...

Come on --- do you really believe that every pregnancy termination is made on sound ethical grounds??????
That's a bold assumption. One that we know from studying other cultures - is outright wrong.

Parents can pressure teens --- boyfriends can bully girlfriends ---- and yes - genocidal and/or misogynist thinking can kill babies, too. We know that happens --- we call it "genetic counseling" --- which is by very definition - genocide.

No --- of course --- there's no evidence that PP has ever terminated a pregnancy simply on the grounds of the sex of the "fetus." That would be unethical --- and we all know that PP is perfectly ethical --- right? (I have a bridge to sell you).

Come on ---- we're talking about the same profession that checks the vacuum cleaner for all the missing parts --- but turns around and tells the patient that it's simply a blood clot (a lie, no matter how you measure it).

Okay - I accept the law of the land.

However, I think it's fully fair and reasonable to expose the odd and exploitive school of ethics that would profit from misogyny, simply because it makes good business sense - and that it's legal.

You want liberty --- to be free to choose --- that's okay --- but remember - we also have freedom of discourse - and I have every right to discuss what I consider to be a serious moral problem.

It's not a choice if you don't have information (something PP would rather you not have).

It's also very hard to have liberty if you don't have life.

bailey bud wrote: No --- of course --- there's no evidence that PP has ever terminated a pregnancy simply on the grounds of the sex of the "fetus."

Good... Then we can agree that once again you're pulling an unprovable assumption out of your backside to try to support your religious beliefs.

I'm glad we got that out of the way.

How misogynist to assume that a woman who's made the decision with her doctor "doesn't have all the information" unless a boatload of unnecessary procedures, and physical violation of her body is forced upon her. How about we insert a trans-penile-probe up your willy to show how the egg got fertilized?

(By the way, I REALLY like the idea of forcing ALL men to undergo a digital prostate exam; a cardiac stress test, counseling on possible OTC/natural generic supplements, and a lecture on abstinence...before any prescriptions for erectile-dysfunction medications can be prescribed.)

plaidvillain wrote: So the law of our land does not deserve your respect, PrintSmith? Apparently you respect the Supreme Court as much as you respect women - not at all. Your OPINION is built upon your religious beliefs. I respect your right to have your religious beliefs, even though you do not grant the same courtesy and respect to others. So YOU and ONLY YOU are right, eh? Everyone with differing opinions (including the Supreme Court) are WRONG? Thank you for confirming my assertion that you are an arrogant.blowhard with NO respect for your neighbor's rights to live as they choose. You claim to uphold the concept of personal liberty, then DEMAND everyone live by YOUR moral code! That makes you a hypocrite AND liar. You're disgusting.

The right to live as you choose can't come at the cost of denying that same right to others weaker than yourself PV. The ability to exercise your right to life can't come at the expense of denying it to others. That is what the law of this land is premised upon. The right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. We are endowed upon our creation with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that is what the very first document which established our independence from a government which thought otherwise says. Whether you believe that a Divine Creator created you or that you were created by the two humans is not relevant or germane to the discussion at hand. Human life in the womb is past the point of its creation by any scientific definition there is - and it has thus already been endowed with a right to life according to the very foundations upon which this union is built.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When you are master of another human life, when you alone can decree whether it lives or dies, then that human life is not endowed with unalienable rights, it possess only those rights which you deem it should have. I respect the laws of this union, and the decisions of its highest court, which are consistent with the foundational principles upon which this union is built. All others must be resisted by all legal means and altered or abolished until they are once again consistent with those foundational principles. You can ascribe it to my religious beliefs all that you wish PV - but what it actually is is the never ending quest to bring that foundational principle ever closer to reality for every human life within this union. At the founding of this union, the practices were a far cry from being true to those principles. As time has passed many of those practices have been abandoned in the quest to make that principle a reality - abortion is an exception to that progression.

Individuals are bestowed those rights, PS. An embryo is not an individual - it is a part of an individual - the mother. An embryo is NOT an independent being...it is dependant upon the mother - the mother who has the LEGAL RIGHT TO MAKE HER OWN DECISIONS.

Individuals are bestowed those rights, PS. An embryo is not an individual - it is a part of an individual - the mother. An embryo is NOT an independent being...it is dependant upon the mother - the mother who has the LEGAL RIGHT TO MAKE HER OWN DECISIONS. Besides that, this issue - Planned Parenthood - is NOT about abortion. Abortion is one fraction of the services provided. This effort to attack PP is an effort to control women and minimize womens' personal liberties.

How misogynist to assume that a woman who's made the decision with her doctor "doesn't have all the information" unless a boatload of unnecessary procedures, and physical violation of her body is forced upon her. How about we insert a trans-penile-probe up your willy to show how the egg got fertilized?

I don't think it's misogyist to observe that there are situations when abortion isn't necessarily a woman's choice. I recognize that it's a complex phenomenon (isn't that what the situational ethicists wanted us to recognize??)

I don't support the boatload of procedures and physical violation. There's plenty of objective photographic information available that a woman should examine in the privacy of her home.

As far as the sonogram/probe goes - I'd rather not --- but would note that abortionists are often more invasive than a silly probe. But hey --- that's your right and your choice. Enjoy it!

The debate about abortion certainly appeals to religious values - but it doesn't really depend on them. You don't need to be a young-earth, pre-millenial dispensation Baptist to have moral qualms with abortion. Even Hillary Clinton would agree with the statement, "there should be fewer abortions in America."

I'm happy to pursue that end within the boundaries of what's legal. I don't feel the urge to dictate choice - but I certainly think that relatively universal ethical considerations should be examined when a choice is made.