planned parenthood video #5 ... It's a matter of line items

[StLucieBengal]

(08-05-2015, 08:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: So the morning zoo DJ who became a Mormon and the sort of optometrist are gonna tell me about abortion?

Yay?

You have got to be able to come up with better insults than these.....

[StLucieBengal]

https://soundcloud.com/glennbeck/beck-blitz-planned-parenthood-exposed-w-lila-rose

Live action comments on the videos and where things are at.... She makes a good point that it's only 5 senators away and that's not counting Graham who didn't vote, and McConnel who didn't vote so he could call it back up.

Getting closer and closer.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-05-2015, 10:05 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: https://soundcloud.com/glennbeck/beck-blitz-planned-parenthood-exposed-w-lila-rose

Live action comments on the videos and where things are at....    She makes a good point that it's only 5 senators away and that's not counting Graham who didn't vote, and McConnel who didn't vote so he could call it back up.      

Getting closer and closer.

First of all, five senators is a lot.  Second of all, is that five senators away from the sixty needed to end a filibuster or the 66(7?) needed to override the obvious presidential veto?

[StLucieBengal]

(08-05-2015, 10:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: First of all, five senators is a lot.  Second of all, is that five senators away from the sixty needed to end a filibuster or the 66(7?) needed to override the obvious presidential veto?

5 isn't that many when 2 are already graham and McConnel. There was 1 GOP senator from Illinois who voted against for cover. He is a yes vote if he makes it. So they only have to turn 2. Plus everyone goes home for townhalls, so the pressure will be on

Forcing the veto will just turn more of the public to the GOP side. Especially as more videos come out. Remember it's not anti abortion, it's anti trafficking baby parts for profits. The public is less sympathetic to that vs abortion.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2015, 01:05 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 5 isn't that many when 2 are already graham and McConnel.    There was 1 GOP senator from Illinois who voted against for cover.   He is a yes vote if he makes it.      So they only have to turn 2.   Plus everyone goes home for townhalls, so the pressure will be on

So, your point is that they only need two, not five.  Why not simply say so from the beginning?  Suspense?  I'll also reiterate, do you mean five/two from cancelling a filibuster or from countering the inevitable presidential veto?  

Quote:Forcing the veto will just turn more of the public to the GOP side.    Especially as more videos come out.

You mean more illegal videos?  Funny that you don't mind illegality when it serves your troll, er, I mean conservative agenda.

Quote:  Remember it's not anti abortion, it's anti trafficking baby parts for profits.     The public is less sympathetic to that vs abortion.

Yes, selling them as opposed to throwing the parts in the trash.  Am I correct that you have less objection to simply throwing fetal tissue in the trash?  Please actually take a stand like a troll, er, I mean man, and say so.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-06-2015, 01:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, your point is that they only need two, not five.  Why not simply say so from the beginning?  Suspense?  I'll also reiterate, do you mean five/two from cancelling a filibuster or from countering the inevitable presidential veto?  


You mean more illegal videos?  Funny that you don't mind illegality when it serves your troll, er, I mean conservative agenda.



Yes, selling them as opposed to throwing the parts in the trash.  Am I correct that you have less objection to simply throwing fetal tissue in the trash?  Please actually take a stand like a troll, er, I mean man, and say so.

I said 5 because that's how many they were short, and the Audio I posted reflected that which is why I also stated 5 in my comments.

What's illegal about the videos? All videos were shot legally. All in 1 party consent states except california where they shot in a restaurant where there is no expectation of privacy.

The problem isn't what they are doing with them . It's that they are profiting off them. I disagree with what they are doing but I am concerned with the legality of trafficking body parts. And that they are altering abortion methods to guaruntee a full baby intact birth so they can sell it for more money. thats all against the law .

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2015, 03:08 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: What's illegal about the videos? All videos were shot legally. All in 1 party consent states except california where they shot in a restaurant where there is no expectation of privacy.

In most states, video recording by hidden camera is not covered under the recording of conversations. In fact, in California that has come to two different conclusions in appellate courts, so it could be an interesting case to be brought up. But yeah, for the most part, one consent only refers to voice recording.

[GMDino]

(08-06-2015, 01:05 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 5 isn't that many when 2 are already graham and McConnel.    There was 1 GOP senator from Illinois who voted against for cover.   He is a yes vote if he makes it.      So they only have to turn 2.   Plus everyone goes home for townhalls, so the pressure will be on

Forcing the veto will just turn more of the public to the GOP side.    Especially as more videos come out.   Remember it's not anti abortion, it's anti trafficking baby parts for profits.     The public is less sympathetic to that vs abortion.

You mean all those people who oppose abortions and don't already vote for the GOP?

But you're right...all they are trying to do is get people to vote for them.  Like the 40+ votes to repeal the ACA.  They knew it would never pass, they didn't really care.  It just showed the base that they "cared" and were "on their side."

If they cared this much it would have been their main priority during the W's time in office.  Its not.  Its propaganda for the masses.

[Belsnickel]

Seems there is already some legal recourse being taken.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0802-court-order-20150802-story.html#page=1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fake-ids-anti-abortion-activists_55bbbcc2e4b0b23e3ce2b0af

http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/court.issues.temporary.restraining.order.against.producer.of.planned.parenthood.undercover.videos/49305.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/29/restraining-order-issued-against-anti-abortion-group-video/

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/07/30/ca-court-restricts-planned-parenthood-video-releases/

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2015, 03:08 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I said 5 because that's how many they were short, and the Audio I posted reflected that which is why I also stated 5 in my comments.

You seem to have real problems actually answering pointed questions.  

Quote:What's illegal about the videos?  All videos were shot legally.   All in 1 party consent states except california where they shot in a restaurant where there is no expectation of privacy.

   
Matt already covered this rather well.

Quote:The problem isn't what they are doing with them .  It's that they are profiting off them.

OIC, now your problem isn't that they're selling the parts, it's that they're turning a profit doing so.  When you exhaust one avenue of inane "outrage" you just jump to another like the previous one never existed.  Some people actually wanted you for mod.  

Quote:  I disagree with what they are doing but I am concerned with the legality of trafficking body parts.    And that they are altering abortion methods to guaruntee a full baby intact birth so they can sell it for more money.     thats all against the law .

No, you're not concerned about that at all.  You, like every other anti-choice mouth frother is simply using this issue as a fulcrum to shut down women's access to abortions.  It's the nibble away strategy.  Slowly erode access to abortions until one day you wake up and there aren't legal anywhere.  Oddly enough the anti-gun people use the exact same tactic and it causes a great deal of consternation among the same people who support the tactic in this instance. 

[Vas Deferens]

(08-06-2015, 10:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, you're not concerned about that at all.  You, like every other anti-choice mouth frother is simply using this issue as a fulcrum to shut down women's access to abortions.  

Quote:It's the nibble away strategy.  Slowly erode access to abortions until one day you wake up and there aren't legal anywhere.  Oddly enough the anti-gun people use the exact same tactic and it causes a great deal of consternation among the same people who support the tactic in this instance. 

never thought of it this way.  thank you.

[fredtoast]

If the donor agrees then how can anyone deny them their freedom to have the tissue donated. Why should strangers be allowed to control what people want to do with their own bodies?

There is nothing illegal about this at all unless they are performing partial birth abortions to preserve some of the organs. Other than that there is no law against PP getting re-imbursed for the costs of preserving and donating the tissue.

In fact I am HAPPY that these aborted fetus are being used for something positive. I don't see how anyone could be opposed to medical research that could save lives.

It is nothing but the anti-abortion crowd looking for another excuse to limit a womans access to a legal abortion.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-06-2015, 10:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You seem to have real problems actually answering pointed questions.  


   
Matt already covered this rather well.




OIC, now your problem isn't that they're selling the parts, it's that they're turning a profit doing so.  When you exhaust one avenue of inane "outrage" you just jump to another like the previous one never existed.  Some people actually wanted you for mod.  


No, you're not concerned about that at all.  You, like every other anti-choice mouth frother is simply using this issue as a fulcrum to shut down women's access to abortions.  It's the nibble away strategy.  Slowly erode access to abortions until one day you wake up and there aren't legal anywhere.  Oddly enough the anti-gun people use the exact same tactic and it causes a great deal of consternation among the same people who support the tactic in this instance. 

Show anywhere that I have advocated to ban abortions in relation to this discussion. Taking away public money isn't the same as saying make abortions illegal. But please continue to misrepresent what I say to fit into whatever it is your trying to do

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2015, 08:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Show anywhere that I have advocated to ban abortions in relation to this discussion.    Taking away public money isn't the same as saying make abortions illegal.     But please continue to misrepresent what I say to fit into whatever it is your trying to do

So you only want people with money to have access to abortions.  Got it.     Making sure the poor don't have access to birth control sounds like a brilliant idea.  I mean there's no way they'll just continue to have kids despite not being able to afford them.  Lord knows there's no evidence of that.

Keep nibbling troll.

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2015, 08:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So you only want people with money to have access to abortions.  Got it.     Making sure the poor don't have access to birth control sounds like a brilliant idea.  I mean there's no way they'll just continue to have kids despite not being able to afford them.  Lord knows there's no evidence of that.

Keep nibbling troll.

Well, the government funds can't go to abortions anyway. So they are just going to be cutting into the other services providing, taxing other providers more and putting more of a demand on Medicaid expansion. Pulling federal funds from PP could increase the need for Medicaid expansion in those states still refusing to do so.

This could actually be a win for the left.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-06-2015, 06:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If the donor agrees then how can anyone deny them their freedom to have the tissue donated.  Why should strangers be allowed to control what people want to do with their own bodies?

There is nothing illegal about this at all unless they are performing partial birth abortions to preserve some of the organs.  Other than that there is no law against PP getting re-imbursed for the costs of preserving and donating the tissue.

In fact I am HAPPY that these aborted fetus are being used for something positive.  I don't see how anyone could be opposed to medical research that could save lives.

It is nothing but the anti-abortion crowd looking for another excuse to limit a womans access to a legal abortion.

If they are changing procedures to a more risky one to maxmize their organ haul so they can sell more for a higher price. That's where they are violating the law. That's what they are admitting over and over again.

Have you seen all the videos? (Full versions) if not It would be interesting to get your professional opinon.

None of this is about making abortions illegal. It's about organ trafficking and manipulating procedures to maximize profits.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2015, 05:04 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: never thought of it this way.  thank you.

It happens in CA with gun control all the time.  I hate the vitriol that often comes from the NRA, but they are correct when they recognize that every gun control measure is merely the stepping stone to the next piece of more restrictive legislation.  I'll give you an actual, and recent, example.  California banned all magazines with a higher than ten round capacity.  They became illegal to purchase or import, but they weren't illegal to possess.  The reason for that is that people who already owned larger capacity magazines within the state were grandfathered in.  As long as the mags didn't leave the state they were still legal.  Last week the Los Angeles city council voted to ban larger capacity magazines from the city entirely, regardless of the above (with exemptions for active duty law enforcement only, and then only for duty weapons).  When the original ban went into effect it was specifically promised that this step would not be taken. 

Now, you could argue, somewhat correctly, that the state made that promise not the city of LA.  However, that's appealing to the letter and not the spirit.  It's the nibble away strategy and it's patently obvious.  The same type of thing is happening here.  Think about it, anti-choice people actually believe that you're murdering babies when you get an abortion.  Do you think anyone who really believes that will stop fighting to eliminate a woman's access to abortions simply because it's no longer receiving public funds?  Common sense should tell anyone the answer.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-06-2015, 08:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the government funds can't go to abortions anyway. So they are just going to be cutting into the other services providing, taxing other providers more and putting more of a demand on Medicaid expansion. Pulling federal funds from PP could increase the need for Medicaid expansion in those states still refusing to do so.

This could actually be a win for the left.

This would be something i would support.  

Really if they wanna do research why can't mothers negotiate their abortion costs in exchange for their baby parts to these research firms?    this type of market would replace the cost for many people.    

On the flip side why can't mothers negotiate compensation for adoption of their baby?    After all we keep hearing that it's economic and thats The reason for abortions .   Let them make money.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2015, 08:19 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, the government funds can't go to abortions anyway. So they are just going to be cutting into the other services providing, taxing other providers more and putting more of a demand on Medicaid expansion. Pulling federal funds from PP could increase the need for Medicaid expansion in those states still refusing to do so.

This could actually be a win for the left.

I know, that's why I specifically said birth control and not abortions.  As for your second point I'm not so sure, you're better informed on that topic than I.

[fredtoast]

(08-06-2015, 08:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: None of this is about making abortions illegal.   It's about organ trafficking and manipulating procedures to maximize profits.

Yeah, I heard that lione of BS before.  just last year Tennessee actually amended its State Constitution to allow stricter regulation of abortion clinics.  All the holier-then-though religious people were claiming it was just about maing abortions "safer" but then multiple sources were leaked showing them celebrating the fact that this would put an end to most abortion clinics operating in the state.

I can respect religious people who oppose abortion because they thin  it is wrong.  But I can't respect the ones who lie and play politics to get what they want.  That is all this is.  All you have to do is look at who is fighting the hardest to defund Planned Parenthood.  It is all the social conservative republicans who oppose abortion.