New Undercover Video of Planned Parenthood

[Mountain Man]

The liberal media is more upset about the killing of a lion than they are about Planned Parenthood selling the body parts of murdered babies.

Source: Newsbusters.org

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture...n-vids-2-weeks

© Copyright Original Source

The most disgusting display, I think, was Jimmy Kimmel becoming teary-eyed over the lion and asking, "I'm honestly curious to know why a human being would feel compelled to do that?" but he apparently hasn't felt compelled to shed a single tear for the innocent human life that is callously slaughtered by the butchers at Planned Parenthood.

[Sparko]

Very droll!

It is absurd to regard a newly fertilized egg as a fully human person, although it is reasonable to regard it as a "potential human life". Hence the only question is when the fetus acquires 'person-hood'. Jewish Law has traditionally said it was at birth.

Again, why is it only a "potential" human life? Is it dead while in the womb, is it not fully human? It has it's own unique DNA so it is not part of the Mother's body. Her body just nourishes it. Just like her body continues to nourish it after birth with milk and care. What makes it only "potential" while in the womb and "actual" outside the womb? Is the birth canal some magical transformation device?

Have you ever studied biology?

[Cale]

Fourth video released. "It's another boy!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQuZMvcFA8

[Christianbookworm]

Sick...

[Jesse]

So, are we still pretending this is about shipping and handling? Or is there some new spin that has come out recently?

[Christianbookworm]

Either way, it's like using the parts of murder victims to sell for medical research! Well, from our perspective, it is...

[Cerealman]

So, are we still pretending this is about shipping and handling? Or is there some new spin that has come out recently?

It's just a pre-April fools joke being aired on Comedy Central.

[Christianbookworm]

I can't see any of the ignored posts for technical reasons, but I suspect I don't want to know what mr. infanticide-should-be-legal-up-to-3-months says.

[Christianbookworm]

Let me guess. Stalight thinks it's perfectly okay to RIP A TINY PREBORN BABY TO PIECES AND USE THE ORGANS!

[Christianbookworm]

Okay.
Shame on you humans for being jerks to each other, hurting the most vulnerable among you, and for not policing the even worst evildoers among you. Shame on you for murdering babies in and out of the womb. Shame on the perpetrators of genocide and other horrible acts. Shame to those who trample others in their race to success. Shame on bullies, oppressors, and abusers. Shame on those who misuse the name of Christ for their evil purposes.

[lilpixieofterror]

I didn't bother because there was nothing to refute - it was a complete deflection. Just because I don't bother to quote and reply to something you said to me in an argument every single time, it does not mean I have to respond to it. You didn't answer my point and so I didn't answer yours.

That is because you can't refute it. Funny how children are able to get what I say, during Sunday School Classes, but you seem to keep missing it. Baby is the term used by wanted 'fetus' and that term is stripped away when that baby isn't wanted. It has nothing to do with my ideology because I'm not the one that wrote the dictionary nor did I ever ask the doctor to use the term 'baby' once. This was done long before I was born and is something the abortion industry does in order to strip away the humanity and is taken straight from the pages of history because other genocidal groups did the same thing, when working on stripping human dignity from the group they want to kill. I answered your point just fine, you just can't respond to it so claim I didn't answer it as a way to deflect from the fact that trying to use proper medical terms vs the term 'baby' is a way to strip away all humanity from the unborn.

How long have you known me? What in the world would lead you to ever think that quoting a Bible verse in this kind of a discussion would convince me of anything? Worse yet, you're proving my point. Your morality is a complete and total double standard. You cry about a zygote being destroyed while using the Bible to justify you getting to decide what animals live and what animals die, for your hunger and personal cravings. You haven't backed it up with any kind of good reasoning but instead are trying to use the damn food-chain as a means to justify your very subjective standards - and poorly so at that. If you're looking to nature to justify a behavior then you're going to end up with people justifying rape and other violent and disgusting actions by these very standards, which is something you think this reasoning doesn't condone.

I used several things you ignored because you're not interested in learning my position, you're interested in trying to refute me and thus you don't read what I said. See, you already have accepted abortion is morally right and you can't refute my arguments and know it, thus your distraction to, "Why do people eat animals?" because you can't refute the arguments I produced. Too bad I gave three points, to my argument, that you seem unable and incapable of refuting beyond just saying that it is wrong because it is wrong. Have people been eating animals for long before civilization ever came about? Yes. Has historically, societies been a omnivore society? Yes. These are all facts that you can't seem to refute, so all you got left is doing the same thing you accuse me of; deflection and distraction. Second, I'm not 'justifying' rape at all because my argument focused on several things. Besides, if you haven't noticed yet, animals have several strategies relating to mating and rape implies the ability to understand what 'force sexual contact' is. Unless you want to claim that all animals have the ability to know the difference between the two (only a handful, you might be able to argue otherwise). Do you have any evidence that the majority of animals have the capacity to understand what rape even means? Yes or no?

Don't waste my time with anymore Bible verses unless you just want me to laugh at you.

Irony at it's finest:

Don't mention Bible verses, get accused of not being a 'true Christian'. Mention Bible verses, get the 'don't make me laugh at you' sort of mentality. Either way, the other side is automatically wrong, right?

I couldn't care less what you or other believers draw from your doctrines and creeds - they hold no value to me. If you're going to advocate that society bow to you values and make them law, you'd better have something better than Bible verses to back it up, so just stop this silly game, unless your objective is to make a fool out of yourself.

And this comes from the same person that tries to act as though most animals even understand what rape is? That is pretty darn funny! You're not a biologist, a psychologist, or zoologist, so please don't act like one. Animals have dozens of sexual practices and some are even specific to their species. Rape implies the ability to understand what unwanted sexual advances even means and considering that many species have the female as the bigger animal, you'd be hard pressed to prove this one. Go ahead though, please show that animals have the same human understandings of sexuality as humans do.

So that's it? You're going to seriously justify this by looking to nature in this way? Nature shows us to have multiple sexual partners as a way to carry our genes into the future, as well as rape consenting females to guarantee such a result, want to do that? Nature tells us not to brush our teeth, take medicine, or host of any other things in medical advance that go against the mechanisms of biological process instilled in us by evolution. This is just really some of the worst logic I've every seen you use, Crystal.

Actually, nature shows us a bunch of different sexual practices, such as females eating the male (such as in the case of praying mantis and black widows), dying after spawning (such as in the case of salmon or the giant cuttlefish), fighting for mates (such as what deer do), or others mate for life (such as elephants or french angelfish). Quite frankly, it is rather amusing to watch you go on about 'rape in the animal kingdom' while ignoring that there's several mating practices within the animal world and you'd have to assume that animals have the ability to understand rape or understand rape in the sense humans do. I suppose when you can't refute what your opponent says; any distraction will do, even when you have to flat out ignore key differences in animal behaviors that sometimes make things impractical for direct human usage.

Maybe you should actually think about what you're going to say to me the next time you post, instead of just looking to reload another round of faulty logic and dangerous reasoning. All you've done is show that so long as you are the one getting to decided which creature live and die it's all good, but if another person their own standard they are evil incarnate. You're a hypocrite of the worst order and you're doing everything in your power to deflect off of it or excuse it, with whatever half-baked reasoning you can come up with.

I thought about it just fine, the problem is that you haven't spent the time to understand a word I said nor to actually put a little thought into what you're saying. It isn't hard to point out that you'd have to assume that animals have the same thoughts about rape that we humans do and well... unless you can prove they do (which I doubt you can), you're kind of stuck. I also noticed you flat out ignored the historical arguments I made before you came up with this half baked 'refutation' that shows you're not biologist, psychologist, or zoologist. Rape is a human concept James and unless you can show that animals have a concept of rape, similar or like humans, you really don't have anything. Sorry James, but I've thought this though over many years and I've already thought of the rape and sex argument long ago, you'd have to assume that animals have the same concepts of humans and you'd have to assume that their sexual practices would even be possible.

Now, go ahead and dig a deeper grave for yourself and then have an ad-hominem rampage that blames it all on me. It's what everybody is waiting for so lets just get it over with.

Irony at it's finest.

Ignoring arguments you can't refute. Check!
Dishonestly cutting up my post, when you can't refute those parts. Check!
Whining when you're arguments don't work as well as you think they do. Check!
Showing that you don't understand the arguments I made, let alone refute them. Check!
Trying endless red herrings instead of dealing with the arguments presented Check!

I dug no grave for myself, you're grave is pretty darn deep at this point and you ignoring anything you can't refute and attacking piles of burning straw just shows how desperate you are to avoid admitting you're wrong. I look forward to you addressing my arguments about human history showing we have omnivores or the biology that we are omnivores (arguments you haven't touched with a 10 and a half foot pole) although watching you trying to show that animals have the same understandings of rape that modern humans do would be the most entertaining thing to watch of them all (even human concepts of rape, are not consistent across time and vary depending on the society in question). Go ahead James, I'd love to watch you throw out more red herrings to chase and show, yet again, that you don't have a clue what my arguments are, let alone can refute them.

[Papa Zoom]

I love the fact that Tweb allows conversations to continue and they don't over moderate. Abortion (or choice if you prefer) is an emotional issue and it's bound to bring out some slightly abrasive commentary. I'm on another forum and three times the mods have closed the discussion permanently because of the claim folks got personal. It's hard to avoid on emotional issues like this one. I do try but it's easy to skirt the edges.

Now that I'm off topic, I'll get back on. What everyone needs to recognize is that these videos are waking up pro-life folks. Pro life groups are becoming more and more determined to seize the momentum these videos have initiated. The videos have exposed an ugly truth about abortion and an even uglier truth about how far we've fallen as a people. Liberals are appalled alongside conservatives. There is more to come. If we had a Republican president PP would have lost it's funding pending investigation. This is growing and will likely get bigger in the coming weeks. Sadly, over three thousand babies are aborted each day. The stakes are high.

[Jaecp]

Only problem though, PZ, is that the videos don't actually support the claims made on their behalf.

Non-religious forums I'm on didn't even have new threads for the 2nd video onward. Most people in the political middle can recognize a shame job like CMP after the first video gets dissected and found wanting

[Sea of red]

Baby is the term used by wanted 'fetus' and that term is stripped away when that baby isn't wanted. It has nothing to do with my ideology because I'm not the one that wrote the dictionary nor did I ever ask the doctor to use the term 'baby' once.

Baby is synonymous with infant, got that? It is not the same thing as a zygote, embryo, or fetus. I couldn't care less what dialogue you or your doctor used when you were pregnant. I have heard doctors I personally know use the terms fetus and embryo countless times, so don't act like it's not done, alrighty? And by the way, a dictionary such as webster is not a scientific dictionary either, and it's a slimy tactic to use but it's the only way you can muddy the waters to help disguise your arguments weakness's

This was done long before I was born and is something the abortion industry does in order to strip away the humanity and is taken straight from the pages of history because other genocidal groups did the same thing, when working on stripping human dignity from the group they want to kill.

Is that you Ben Stein? What are going to do next, start with the Nazi analogies and comparisons to eugenics? Get a grip and stop with the dramatics. If you want everybody to take your idea seriously, then be prepared for hard criticism and calls to back it up with more than emotional appeals and scare tactics.

I answered your point just fine, you just can't respond to it so claim I didn't answer it as a way to deflect from the fact that trying to use proper medical terms vs the term 'baby' is a way to strip away all humanity from the unborn.

You didn't answer it just fine. You squirmed like the little weasel we know you to be and used one of the most asinine arguments I've seen on this board in awhile. The fact of the matter is, you can't come up with a good argument for why when YOU kill other creatures for your own gain that it's not any less immoral by this logic. Be consistent or get it out. Make up your mind because you can't have it both ways.

I used several things you ignored because you're not interested in learning my position, you're interested in trying to refute me and thus you don't read what I said. See, you already have accepted abortion is morally right and you can't refute my arguments and know it, thus your distraction to, "Why do people eat animals?" because you can't refute the arguments I produced. Too bad I gave three points, to my argument, that you seem unable and incapable of refuting beyond just saying that it is wrong because it is wrong.

The piss poor arguments you've used to justify your double standard are laughable, which is why I laughed at them, understand? The three points you gave were handily refuted and you just pissing a fit because your horrid logic is on display once again. I understand your position fully - and that's the problem. Just because a person won't swallow the incredible arguments of lilpixieofterror doesn't mean they didn't understand them.

Have people been eating animals for long before civilization ever came about? Yes.

Does this prove it's moral? No.

Has historically, societies been a omnivore society? Yes.

Does this prove it's moral? No.

These are all facts that you can't seem to refute, so all you got left is doing the same thing you accuse me of; deflection and distraction. Second, I'm not 'justifying' rape at all because my argument focused on several things.

Nope. They've been refuted pretty well. You are deflecting and distracting. You think you have the right to ask others any questions you want to while simultaneously ignoring their questions, and this time you're not getting to do that.

Besides, if you haven't noticed yet, animals have several strategies relating to mating and rape implies the ability to understand what 'force sexual contact' is. Unless you want to claim that all animals have the ability to know the difference between the two (only a handful, you might be able to argue otherwise). Do you have any evidence that the majority of animals have the capacity to understand what rape even means? Yes or no?

By this horrid logic that you call an argument, a lot of mentally disabled people and children can not be raped because they can't really understand the concept. Besides, it's not the capacity to understand you jackass, it's the intrinsic nature of the act being wrong from an objective point of view. You said that the food-chain is evidence of killing animals to be acceptable, I said if this is true, then why not take other cues from nature and have no sexual restraint. You wanna give that another shot, or do you want to just continue to reach new levels of fail?

Don't mention Bible verses, get accused of not being a 'true Christian'. Mention Bible verses, get the 'don't make me laugh at you' sort of mentality. Either way, the other side is automatically wrong, right?

I'm guessing you're talking about this:

You didn't actually answer the question. I asked why you have the right to kill animals for your own gain or hunger and you've only replied that since we've always done it that makes it acceptable. The food chain is not exactly a good place to find morality, and with you being a Christian, I'm shocked you used the example

Then way miss the point, genius. The obvious reference I was making to is objective morality that Christians say they believe in and are always using as example for whatever they want to often be law. The world of nature is cold and has no understanding of objective morals - that you say you believe in - and ask others to adhere to with you. At no point did ask you to back-up anything with the scripture that took up most of your response.

And this comes from the same person that tries to act as though most animals even understand what rape is?

Good job on missing the point again. It's not about whether animals understand the concept, alright? It's about whether we should take cues from animal behavior and ethics like you did to justify eating other creatures. Geez, get your head out of the clouds and come back to Earth. If you can't understand this is my argument then get out of this thread and go play village idiot some place else.

That is pretty darn funny! You're not a biologist, a psychologist, or zoologist, so please don't act like one.

Maybe not, but it's obvious I've got a better understanding than you do, and I've had other friends of mine that are biologists compliment my grasp of the field, what about you?

Animals have dozens of sexual practices and some are even specific to their species. Rape implies the ability to understand what unwanted sexual advances even means and considering that many species have the female as the bigger animal, you'd be hard pressed to prove this one. Go ahead though, please show that animals have the same human understandings of sexuality as humans do.

As I said before, you missed the point miserably.

Still a dumbass.

Actually, nature shows us a bunch of different sexual practices, such as females eating the male (such as in the case of praying mantis and black widows),

^
Well, this I could actually see you doing.

dying after spawning (such as in the case of salmon or the giant cuttlefish), fighting for mates (such as what deer do), or others mate for life (such as elephants or french angelfish). Quite frankly, it is rather amusing to watch you go on about 'rape in the animal kingdom' while ignoring that there's several mating practices within the animal world and you'd have to assume that animals have the ability to understand rape or understand rape in the sense humans do.

Let me know when you decided to stop burning these outrageous straw-men. Never said had anything to do with the ability to comprehend the morality of the act - those are your words.

I suppose when you can't refute what your opponent says; any distraction will do, even when you have to flat out ignore key differences in animal behaviors that sometimes make things impractical for direct human usage.

You've completely butchered my argument, your argument, and have done nothing but throw up smoke screens to distract from your weak arguments. Why should anybody bother to do anything but laugh at you at this point?

I thought about it just fine, the problem is that you haven't spent the time to understand a word I said nor to actually put a little thought into what you're saying. It isn't hard to point out that you'd have to assume that animals have the same thoughts about rape that we humans do and well... unless you can prove they do (which I doubt you can), you're kind of stuck. I also noticed you flat out ignored the historical arguments I made before you came up with this half baked 'refutation' that shows you're not biologist, psychologist, or zoologist.

1)You are not a zoologist, biologist, or psychologist and your track record on understanding these topics is pretty awful even for you, 2)Your argument is not an historical, genius, it's a biological and human psychological one. 3)Can you at least get your own insults instead of trying to poorly re-engineer mine like in bold?

Rape is a human concept James and unless you can show that animals have a concept of rape, similar or like humans, you really don't have anything.

Frank_HolyCrap.jpg~c200.jpg

So now rape is just a concept from humans? Crystal dear, you're playing in a territory known as subjective morality. I just threw it out there that it was surprising that you'd say this stuff - and thought you must have missed a contradiction in terms, but now we are seeing you pretty much embracing a subjective view of morality on one of the core issues of it. This is a stunning revelation and I appreciate you telling us all... even if it did just slip out.

I dug no grave for myself, you're grave is pretty darn deep at this point and you ignoring anything you can't refute and attacking piles of burning straw just shows how desperate you are to avoid admitting you're wrong. I look forward to you addressing my arguments about human history showing we have omnivores or the biology that we are omnivores (arguments you haven't touched with a 10 and a half foot pole) although watching you trying to show that animals have the same understandings of rape that modern humans do would be the most entertaining thing to watch of them all (even human concepts of rape, are not consistent across time and vary depending on the society in question). Go ahead James, I'd love to watch you throw out more red herrings to chase and show, yet again, that you don't have a clue what my arguments are, let alone can refute them.

You've really just owned yourself in this little match of ours so it's kind of hard for me to pick on you in a closing statement because I'm starting to feel bad about kicking somebody that's down.

1)You have not shown from a moral perspective why killing animals for your own gain is acceptable; you quoted bible verses.
2)You dishonestly use terms like baby interchangeably with embryo and fetus and use layman dictionaries to justify it.
3)You have thrown up countless distractions to deflect off your arguments weakness's, including the use of blatant straw-men.
4)You let it slip out that you basically are arguing these ideas from your own subjective morality.
5)You can't even come up with your own insults; you have to re-engineer mine.

You're just embarrassing yourself but if you want to continue in this argument of doom where you commit debate Harikari, then feel free to keep on keeping on. I'm game.

[Tassman]

Only problem though, PZ, is that the videos don't actually support the claims made on their behalf.

Non-religious forums I'm on didn't even have new threads for the 2nd video onward. Most people in the political middle can recognize a shame job like CMP after the first video gets dissected and found wanting

Yes indeed and the emotionalism has more than just a whiff of hypocrisy about it. In one simple quote, Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B. sums up the hypocrisy in the 'pro-life' movement:

"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...etail=facebook