Planned Parenthood Target Of New Undercover Sting?

archer wrote: Wow...you all keep posting that you fear a woman will have an abortion because her fetus is female. Really? You should be more concerned about women selecting to keep female babies and abort the males...why bring more males into this world if all they want to do is make laws that tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies?

The thread topic is centered on misogyny archer - offspring being destroyed in the womb because they are female. This society doesn't like misogyny. Why is misogyny OK as long as it is tied to abortion and not OK otherwise? Are some forms of misogyny OK and others not? The probe of PP was looking for misogyny - offspring being destroyed because they are female. Why is looking for evidence of misogyny a bad thing?

:Snooze

Since you apparently have no proof that the alleged misogyny is taking place, and specifically at PP clinics, you're farting in the wind. If you have such a link to prove this misogyny, post it. Otherwise, you're on one of your b.s. fishing expeditions.

And you're right... If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

If it isn't your fetus, it's none of your business.

See: "The Right-to-Life/Anti-Abortion thread.." in the Ring...

Proof is something that you get by investigating - which is what was being done by informing PP that the abortion was being sought because the offspring was female and seeing how PP responded once they were in possession of knowledge that the abortion was being sought specifically for that reason. I, for one, would be relieved to know that PP isn't turning a blind eye to such practices in the pursuit of profits from their abortion business, wouldn't you? While true that I think any offspring which are destroyed in violation of their unalienable rights that they were endowed with upon their creation is a bad thing, I would find the destruction of one's offspring due to them being female even more reprehensible than the "normal" reason human life is destroyed by abortion.

An allegation that they were doing this without proof to back it up would be an illegitimate smear on PP's reputation, wouldn't it? How is proof to be obtained without investigation LJ, by divination or mind reading perhaps? That's why I keep asking why an investigation to see whether or not PP was assisting in obtaining an abortion because of the offspring's gender is a bad thing. Don't we all hope that PP isn't doing that whether we support or oppose abortion?

Then call for an investigation of the records by a legitimate oversight committee. O'Keefe and his Hitler-Youth have already proven that the methods they use are dishonest, and in many cases illegal.

:Snooze

Since you apparently have no proof that the alleged misogyny is taking place, and specifically at PP clinics, you're farting in the wind. If you have such a link to prove this misogyny, post it. Otherwise, you're on one of your b.s. fishing expeditions.

And you're right... If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

If it isn't your fetus, it's none of your business.

See: "The Right-to-Life/Anti-Abortion thread.." in the Ring...

I don't believe that they seek to obtain that information in their questionnaire LJ. How do you propose to have a "legitimate" oversight committee investigate it? And do you think that it would be a legitimate function of any oversight committee to begin with given your statement that it's none of anyone's business? Is it a legitimate concern of the society whether offspring are being destroyed because of their sex if what you are saying is true, that it is none of their business?

If a person is in favor of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, her motivation doesn't matter at all. If she chooses to have an abortion because of gene mutations, the baby's gender, the father's identity (or lack thereof), or the fact that her due date is two weeks after her non-refundable week in a singles resort in Cabo, it's her right to choose.

Last time I checked, women do still have the right to choose.

PrintSmith wrote: Is it a legitimate concern of the society whether offspring are being destroyed because of their sex if what you are saying is true, that it is none of their business?

That's right... Whether you like it or not, it's LEGAL. Women still have the right to choose.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

If it's not your fetus, it's none of your business.

What part of that don't you understand?

Last time I checked, the law did not allow unrestricted access and the right that the Warren Court created specifically referenced the the States' legitimate interest in protecting both prenatal life and the health of the woman in it's decision. Which brings us to whether or not it is a legitimate interest of the State in protecting the offspring from being destroyed in utero solely because it is female. Do you think that this is a legitimate exercise of the States' interest in protecting prenatal life? The woman whose holiday at a singles resort in Cabo isn't availing herself of the right to destroy her offspring because of its sex, she is exercising her right to destroy her offspring because she doesn't want a child at all, regardless of what sex her offspring is. Likewise, the woman who chooses to destroy her offspring because of the identity of the father (or lack thereof) or because she becomes aware that her offspring is genetically damaged is not concerned with the sex of the child when those decisions are made. Does her decision to destroy her offspring based on her offspring's sex fall under the judicially recognized legitimate State interest of protecting prenatal life? That's the question that no one seems willing to address NTM. The probe conducted at various PP locations raises that very specific question. The supposedly pregnant women visited the clinic and expressed a desire to determine the sex of their offspring prior to making a decision on whether or not they wanted PP's help in aborting their offspring. Is that a scenario which we in this society agree is protected by the right the Warren Court created? Or was this scenario part of what was being talked about by the Warren Court when they said the State had a legitimate interest in protecting prenatal life when they created the right to secure an abortion?

See: "The Right-to-Life/Anti-Abortion thread.." in the Ring...


That's right... Whether you like it or not, it's LEGAL. Women still have the right to choose.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one.

If it's not your fetus, it's none of your business.

What part of that don't you understand?

We're exploring specifically the topic which you raised - what happens when an abortion business becomes aware that the abortion is being sought solely on the basis of the offspring's sex. The Supreme Court has recognized that there is a legitimate State interest in protecting prenatal life when it created the right to have an abortion. Is protecting prenatal life from being destroyed on the basis sex a legitimate exercise of this judicially recognized State interest in protecting prenatal life?