Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

hinault

SW wrote: »

Yes, I'm pro-choice. And I've argued for it on other forums on the site too.

Well maybe you should restrict your advocacy for abortion to those other fora.

SW wrote: »

If you wish to stop pro-choice opinions being expressed in the forum, you can avail yourself of the Feedback thread regarding this forum

Thanks for the link.

I intend to utilise that link in respect of your content to this thread.

MrPudding

hinault wrote: »

Well maybe you should restrict your advocacy for abortion to those other fora.





Thanks for the link.

I intend to utilise that link in respect of your content to this thread.

Who made you the internet police?

MrP

Timberrrrrrrr

MrPudding wrote: »

Who made you the internet police?

MrP

GOD???

PopePalpatine

MrPudding wrote: »

Who made you the internet police?

MrP

Probably the blasphemy law.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Back on topic please everyone

Thanks for your attention.

hinault

And the "feedback" thread has been closed since :rolleyes:

I've no difficulty with you SW advocating your views to legalise abortion elsewhere throughout this site.

I just don't think that the Christianity section of this site is the place where your views should have to be indulged.

robdonn

hinault wrote: »

And the "feedback" thread has been closed since :rolleyes:

That's unfortunate. The Christianity Forum Charter states:

11. Do not discuss moderation decisions in a thread. If you have an issue with the actions of a mod, please contact them via PM. If the dispute has not been resolved after this correspondence, the correct procedure is to then PM the C-mods. If the issue remains unresolved, a thread should be started on the Dispute Resolution Forum.

I'm not sure exactly who the C-mod(s) is/are, but maybe SW can let you know. Or, if SW is the only C-mod, then you can create a thread in the Dispute Resolution Forum.

hinault wrote: »

I've no difficulty with you SW advocating your views to legalise abortion elsewhere throughout this site.

I just don't think that the Christianity section of this site is the place where your views should have to be indulged.

I don't want to get into this too much as it's not really the topic of the thread, but a moderator should be allowed to express their views in any way that follows the guidelines of the forum and as long as it does not interfere with their duties.

It is not really appropriate for any user to tell another user, whether a mod or not, when and where they can express their own opinions.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

To find a list of co-mods, C-Mods, you go to the Christianity forum page.

They are listed at the bottom of the page. Asiaprod, bluewolf, mike_ie, Scofflaw and Taltos are the CMods. Myself and Turtwig are the Christianity mods.

Pro-choice posters are not barred from arguing from a pro-choice perspective once they don't break the charter.

Any moderation issues should be directed to co-mods/CMods/Helpdesk.

Now, everyone, please resume discussion on the actual topic

Thanks for your attention.

robdonn

Right, so nobody has yet been able to show that Planned Parenthood have been selling foetal samples for profit.

The videos show discussions about reimbursement costs for the handling, storing and transportation of the samples, prices that have been agreed by other tissue handling organisations as being below the actual costs, meaning not profitable.

Any other arguments?

Two Sheds

A third video released.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/third-planned-parenthood-video-out-120712.html

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

Right, so nobody has yet been able to show that Planned Parenthood have been selling foetal samples for profit.

The videos show discussions about reimbursement costs for the handling, storing and transportation of the samples, prices that have been agreed by other tissue handling organisations as being below the actual costs, meaning not profitable.

Any other arguments?

The pro-choice argument has shifted from 'we're not killing babies" to "we're not doing it for profit".

Lies built upon lies until the entire rotten edifice falls in on itself.

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

The pro-choice argument has shifted from 'we're not killing babies" to "we're not doing it for profit".

Lies built upon lies until the entire rotten edifice falls in on itself.

eh, pretty much all of the counter-points in this thread have been against the accusation of planned parenthood illegally making profit from foetal tissue donations.

Have you any proof of the allegation?

Two Sheds

SW wrote: »

eh, pretty much all of the counter-points in this thread have been against the accusation of planned parenthood illegally making profit from foetal tissue donations.

Have you any proof of the allegation?

What level of proof would satisfy you?
Would such proof make any difference to your support for the abortion industry?
What level of proof do you demand before believing that a news story is probably true?

Delirium

Two Sheds wrote: »

What level of proof would satisfy you?
Would such proof make any difference to your support for the abortion industry?
What level of proof do you demand before believing that a news story is probably true?

how about you just provide what evidence you have and let people judge for themselves?

hinault

Two Sheds wrote: »

The pro-choice argument has shifted from 'we're not killing babies" to "we're not doing it for profit".

Lies built upon lies until the entire rotten edifice falls in on itself.

Planned Parenthood is all about the profit motive.

Their last set of published accounts show an organisation making net profits $1.2 billion for the year ended 30th June 2013.

Nearly half of it's annual funding comes from the US taxpayer.

Planned Parenthood killed 327,166 human lives through abortion in the year 2012.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/7413/9620/1089/AR-FY13_111213_vF_rev3_ISSUU.pdf

Two Sheds

SW wrote: »

how about you just provide what evidence you have and let people judge for themselves?

The evidence is in the three videos.

After two videos caught Planned Parenthood doctors discussing and arranging the sale of body parts of aborted babies, a third video has been released today catching a Planned Parenthood vice president negotiating the sale of aborted babies and attempting to get as much money as possible from the deal.

With multiple investigations ongoing and lots more video evidence to emerge, I'm confident that those still looking for 'proof' will eventually find the ground gone from beneath their feet.

People will judge for themselves and some people will choose to deny the obvious - that's always the case.

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

The evidence is in the three videos.
With multiple investigations ongoing and lots more video evidence to emerge, I'm confident that those still looking for 'proof' will eventually find the ground gone from beneath their feet.

People will judge for themselves and some people will choose to deny the obvious - that's always the case.

What evidence is in the videos?

Kev W

Two Sheds wrote: »

The pro-choice argument has shifted from 'we're not killing babies" to "we're not doing it for profit".

Inherently untrue. The" not killing babies" argument is based in the fact that a fetus is not a baby. This argument has not been abandoned.

The "not doing it for profit" argument is a response to the lie that's been spun around the notion that aborted fetus parts are being sold for profit.

They are two separate responses to two separate issues. No "shift" necessary.

Two Sheds

Kev W wrote: »

Inherently untrue. The" not killing babies" argument is based in the fact that a fetus is not a baby. This argument has not been abandoned.

The "not doing it for profit" argument is a response to the lie that's been spun around the notion that aborted fetus parts are being sold for profit.

They are two separate responses to two separate issues. No "shift" necessary.

And down the rabbit hole we go ...:rolleyes:

Two Sheds

lazygal wrote: »

What evidence is in the videos?

Enough to convince a jury, I'm sure.

Kev W

Two Sheds wrote: »

And down the rabbit hole we go ...:rolleyes:

Even putting aside the arguments for or against the personhood of the fetus (an argument which would be off topic on this thread and has been had on more than one thread on this site anyway) my actual point that there has been no "shift" in the pro-choice argument remains.

Kev W

Two Sheds wrote: »

Enough to convince a jury, I'm sure.

Such as?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Kev W wrote: »

The "not doing it for profit" argument is a response to the lie that's been spun around the notion that aborted fetus parts are being sold for profit.

Wheres the harm in doing it for profit though?
people have to get payed, for transport, storage, whatever. And they already are getting payed, so wheres the line?

Two Sheds

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Wheres the harm in doing it for profit though?
people have to get payed, for transport, storage, whatever. And they already are getting payed, so wheres the line?

It's a valid point. Planned Parenthood don't deny butchering thousands of children and they're not concerned with that reality. Their only concern is that they may be breaking a law and endangering their funding.

It's about the money.

The CMP knows that the American public have become desensitised to killing children - a culture of death - and is therefore trying to destroy Planned Parenthood by using the System.

Kev W

Two Sheds wrote: »

It's a valid point. Planned Parenthood don't deny butchering thousands of children and they're not concerned with that reality. Their only concern is that they may be breaking a law and endangering their funding.

It's about the money.

The CMP knows that the American public have become desensitised to killing children - a culture of death - and is therefore trying to destroy Planned Parenthood by using the System.

With what evidence?

lazygal

Two Sheds wrote: »

Enough to convince a jury, I'm sure.

So what is this evidence?

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Enough to convince a jury, I'm sure.

And for a third, what is the evidence?

Overheal

Two Sheds wrote: »

I
If a video is released showing a child being dumped into a bucket to die, then we'll finally have cut through the double-speak.

https://youtu.be/BtpdYlcbVRQ

If I recall correctly, just last year the Catholic Church was under fire for the claim that 800 dead babies were buried in a septic tank, based on 2 published articles. Too bad for everyone that jumped at that preliminary evidence, that it wasn't completely true (though still pretty bad):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/09/the-truth-behind-irelands-dead-babies-scandal-five-questions/

Similarly, you're jumping down the throat of edited and clipped youtube videos. I see more compelling evidence of things in the Conspiracies forum, frankly, than those videos, and we spend a lot of time debating the pixelation of airplane images without much sense of irony whatsoever.

You really plant a lot of eyes on you when you jump rapidly to a conclusion that is far from concluded. Go ahead and purport that there is a conspiracy to profit off dead fetus kidneys from a bunch of doctors that laugh satanically at the hippocratic oath and all dream of sugar plums and lambroginis in their driveways - but those choosing to stand by that theory with potato quality evidence, run the inherent risk of being heavily criticized for not looking for actual evidence. Actual evidence? Find me some ledgers that show a trail of money turning dead babies into Bentleys, then we start having something.

Two Sheds

Overheal wrote: »

If I recall correctly, just last year the Catholic Church was under fire for the claim that 800 dead babies were buried in a septic tank, based on 2 published articles. Too bad for everyone that jumped at that preliminary evidence, that it wasn't completely true (though still pretty bad):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/09/the-truth-behind-irelands-dead-babies-scandal-five-questions/

Similarly, you're jumping down the throat of edited and clipped youtube videos. I see more compelling evidence of things in the Conspiracies forum, frankly, than those videos, and we spend a lot of time debating the pixelation of airplane images without much sense of irony whatsoever.

You really plant a lot of eyes on you when you jump rapidly to a conclusion that is far from concluded. Go ahead and purport that there is a conspiracy to profit off dead fetus kidneys from a bunch of doctors that laugh satanically at the hippocratic oath and all dream of sugar plums and lambroginis in their driveways - but those choosing to stand by that theory with potato quality evidence, run the inherent risk of being heavily criticized for not looking for actual evidence. Actual evidence? Find me some ledgers that show a trail of money turning dead babies into Bentleys, then we start having something.

Presenting a demand for evidence that you know cannot be presented without committing a crime is an obvious attempt to stick your fingers in your ears and sing 'la-la-la'.

The evidence is presented and mounting and it's enough to cause a political and social stir in the US, even if our media are intent on downplaying it.

A major supporter of Planned Parenthood is feeling uneasy-
Hillary Clinton Calls Planned Parenthood Videos ‘Disturbing’

hinault

Two Sheds wrote: »

Presenting a demand for evidence that you know cannot be presented without committing a crime is an obvious attempt to stick your fingers in your ears and sing 'la-la-la'.

The evidence is presented and mounting and it's enough to cause a political and social stir in the US, even if our media are intent on downplaying it.

A major supporter of Planned Parenthood is feeling uneasy-
Hillary Clinton Calls Planned Parenthood Videos ‘Disturbing’

Hilary was against abortion at one time - now she's in favour :rolleyes:

$1.2 billion profit that Planned Parenthood made out of genocide in the years to 30th June 2013 tells you and everyone else for that matter, what motivates these butchers.

The fact that you have folks defending Planned Parenthood here - by not condemning Planned Parenthood - speaks volumes.