Planned Parenthood Target Of New Undercover Sting?

plaidvillain wrote: HEY! THIS IS NOT A CONVERSATION ABOUT ABORTION! THIS IS ABOUT PLANNED PARENTHOOD! yes, PP performs some abortions in addition to providing needed health services to women who may not otherwise receive care. Attacking Planned Parenthood does virtually nothing to stop abortion. Attacking PP is about CONTROLLING WOMEN AND MARGINALIZING THEM.

Now, would any of you righteous hypocrites care to address THAT?

The OP was about a supposed sting operation to see if PP was actively providing abortion services for those who were interested in obtaining an abortion procedure due to the sex of the human life that was in the womb. It is not the wellness programs that are being probed, it is the abortions services they provide that is the supposed subject of the probes. I see nothing wrong with attacking the abortion services of PP in an effort to persuade them to abandon those services. I see nothing wrong with exerting pressure on the institution as a whole to persuade them to abandon their abortion services. PP performs nearly 28% of all abortions in the union - that is a far cry from "some" abortions".

Go start your own thread about abortion... This thread is about the failed stings at PP's offices.

Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services relate to abortion... http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

Which account for 28% of all abortion services provided in the union. You are the one who started the thread about Planned Parenthood's abortion services being the target of supposed sting operations intending to find out whether or not they participated in assisting those seeking an abortion based solely on the sex of the human life in the womb. I, frankly, don't see anything wrong with ensuring that they are neither assisting nor promoting such a misogynistic practice as this in their clinics and I find it strangely curious that you would.

PrintSmith wrote:

plaidvillain wrote: HEY! THIS IS NOT A CONVERSATION ABOUT ABORTION! THIS IS ABOUT PLANNED PARENTHOOD! yes, PP performs some abortions in addition to providing needed health services to women who may not otherwise receive care. Attacking Planned Parenthood does virtually nothing to stop abortion. Attacking PP is about CONTROLLING WOMEN AND MARGINALIZING THEM.

Now, would any of you righteous hypocrites care to address THAT?

The OP was about a supposed sting operation to see if PP was actively providing abortion services for those who were interested in obtaining an abortion procedure due to the sex of the human life that was in the womb. It is not the wellness programs that are being probed, it is the abortions services they provide that is the supposed subject of the probes. I see nothing wrong with attacking the abortion services of PP in an effort to persuade them to abandon those services. I see nothing wrong with exerting pressure on the institution as a whole to persuade them to abandon their abortion services. PP performs nearly 28% of all abortions in the union - that is a far cry from "some" abortions".

Seriously? More of the, "I'm right. Everyone else is wrong. I don't need to respect the law, or my neighbor's right to live their own life, or women in general." Shut up! Take care of your own life and let others live theirs. Your crusade is hypocritical. You are not about "caring", you are about "control". You sit there on your pulpit, condemning others, trying to equate liberals to mass murderers...you. condemn those who seek abortion while at the same time praise the "self defense" murder of an unarmed child! Your "ethics" are disgusting. Really, dude, you are seriously, seriously twisted and messed up! You want to tear down an organization that provides health services to MILLIONNS of women because of YOUR twisted religious opinions! That's sick! Do you even hear yourself?

All about freedom - YOUR freedom to tell everyone else how to live!

Is a bad law supposed to garner respect PV? I'm seeking a recognition that abortion denies to some who are created the rights that all who are created are endowed with. I correctly point out that abortion has destroyed more human life than the worst, most evil dictators of the 20th century combined have managed to destroy. You don't like hearing the truth? I really don't care - the truth will be heard.

And yes, I will support the right of someone to defend their life with lethal force regardless of where they happen to be when their life is imperiled. You show me evidence which removes any doubt that can be sustained by reason that Zimmerman threatened that boy with his gun to kick off their altercation and I'll join you in calling for his head on a platter. Unless and until it can be established beyond any doubt that can be sustained by reason that he was defending his own life when he shot that boy, however, our system of justice demands that he be viewed as innocent of committing any crime for which he stands accused. Bring me evidence that erases any reasonable doubt PV, not emotional hysterics.

Emotional hysterics have no place in discourse rooted in reason. Attempting to slur me with religious based attacks doesn't alter the reality of the science surrounding abortion. It will still be the destruction of human life after it has been created, regardless of whether I believe in a Divine Creator or not. There is no scientifically based argument which says that the embryo living and growing inside a woman's womb is not a human life. You can justify its destruction by failing to recognize it as a person all you want, you cannot alter the scientifically established truth that it is a human life that is destroyed when an abortion is performed. The unmitigated slaughter of human life must always include dehumanizing it before it is palatable - and that is all your efforts attempt to do. Remove from that human life its tether to humanity and it will always be perfectly acceptable to some to destroy it. Say it loud and say it proud PV - tell us all how proud you are to support the destruction of human life while it is in the womb, utterly incapable of defending itself from being destroyed.

PS, I never attacked your religion or slurred you for it. I "slurred" you because you are a hypocrite, and your sense of "ethics" is absolutely disgusting - IN MY OPINION. Your "facts" are opinions and your primary objective is to control others.

Also, despite your desperate attempts to miscategorize me as supporting the destruction of human life - I do not - I support respecting others' right to make their own decisions and live their own lives. I do not expect you to understand this - you clearly can't grasp the concept of respect for others.

You deserve no more of my time.

What's the conversation about?

Unlike PS, I don't think there's any sense in arguing about the legality of abortion. The SCOTUS says it's legal - an opinion that even been upheld by Republican appointees. I don't happen to agree - but the court has the final say.

I DO think the conversation is about ethics - including concerns behind the ethics of abortion. It seems perfectly fair and reasonable to point out that an occasional contributing factor for pregnancy termination is misogynism. Why would a feminist want to ignore that reality? (the answer is that PP is about abortion --- just like the NRA is about guns --- and wants to ignore some uncomfortable/inconvenient facts).

Abortion practitioners (I'll define that as people who perform them and assist those that are performing them) ignore some objective realities.

The pro-lifer makes the objective observation that the fetus's heart is beating - the abortionist argues that it's none of anyone's business. They ignore the objective reality, in deference to privacy. That doesn't change the reality, though.

In the case at-hand, a group of individuals attempted to demonstrate that PP was willing to facilitate genocide - yet PP says "that's none of your business." Only an abortionist would argue that genocide is none of someone's business. That's how far the defense of privacy goes.

Ethical concerns do not go away simply because the practitioner invokes privacy. I think the ethical discussion is a fair and reasonable one (incidentally, I think the politicians are poor practitioners of ethics, and ought to stay out of the conversation).

My sympathies are largely with Lennart Nilsson, who has done some amazing photographic work in fetal development. (a less-known fact is that some of his photos are from aborted fetuses).

Nilsson feels that

There are biological, ethical, legal, political and religious evaluations on the creation of life. So the only answer I can give is that it’s up to each of us to form an opinion.

I'm happy to provide objective, factual material - that will help people form their opinion.

Naturally, I hope that people will agree with me - that life begins at conception.

That said - I think police, bureaucrats, courts and lawyers are lousy ways of persuading people.

plaidvillain wrote: PrintSmith, YOU are the propagandist distorting reality by insisting your opinions are fact - not me.. YOU are the one attempting to villainize others for their decisions - not me. YOU are the one who refuses to respect your neighbors right to the privacy of their own lives and decisions - not me. You insist I've insulted your religion...when? How? If it is a part of your religion to CONTROL OTHERS - then YOU are a hypocrite. Bad law? BAD LAW? Again, YOUR opinion. And you persist with defending a man who gunned down an unarmed minor by simply giving HIM the benefit of the doubt? You insist he may simply state "self defense" and the burden is on others to prove it wasn't? My GOD! You are hopelessly twisted! So that law is a GOOD LAW in your view, but empowering women to have control over their own lives - THEIR OWN BODIES, is a BAD law? Disgusting!

I stand by my earlier comment -you are not about "caring", you are about "control". No need for freedom, PrintSmith can make all our deciisions for us!

You deserve no more of my time.

Your right to privacy, your right to use and abuse your own body as you see fit, does not extend so far as to justify the destruction of another human life and to deny to that human life access to the rights which its creation endowed it with. That life was created equal to your own, with the same unalienable rights that you yourself were created with. All are created equal in the eyes of the law - their equality and their rights are endowed upon them as a consequence of their creation. That is the foundational premise, the promise, of this union which is violated in an abortion performed to effect birth control after conception.

And yet the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

The right to privacy does not preclude a frank and honest discussion of the risks and/or benefits of abortion.

Although technology is changing this - the procedure remains invasive, and it has very real long-term risks (as a close friend of mine knows full well).

I'm of the opinion that frank and honest discussion is essential. I do not think the providers of this "service" are very interested in frank discussion.

Nor do I think the providers are interested in the ethics of their profession.