Quote :

"these journalists"

lololololololol "journalists"

[Edited on March 30, 2017 at 12:52 PM. Reason : HCH going straight HAM today]

3/30/2017 12:51:50 PM

Attack the messenger, not the message.

3/30/2017 1:23:29 PM

^this guy

3/30/2017 1:29:44 PM

Still waiting on those sources HCH.

3/30/2017 1:30:36 PM

Quote :

"California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced the charges against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt on Tuesday, saying the state "will not tolerate the criminal recording of confidential conversations.""

Glad to see that Planned Parenthood making campaign contributions to Becerra paid off.

3/30/2017 1:55:47 PM

^^Which facts do you need sources for. Everything I posted is easily confirmed with a quick google search.

^It wasnt just Becerra, but Kamala Harris who preceded him as the AG. Not only are they bankrolled by PP, Harris was found to have secretly worked with Planned Parenthood to draft legislation that would imprison journalists who record conversations with abortionists or health care providers.

3/30/2017 2:25:32 PM

"journalists"

3/30/2017 2:37:55 PM

Attack the messenger, not the message.

3/30/2017 2:39:56 PM

Everyone on this page is doing both you dolt.

3/30/2017 2:56:46 PM

and that message has been disproven

3/30/2017 2:57:07 PM

Are ya'll talking about the O'Keefe PP videos?

All I hear from leftists on that guy is "He's discredited/debunked" but that makes me assume he must not be since typically if a leftist says "it's been disproven" that means it is legit and they are pissed.

3/30/2017 3:30:27 PM

*makes grunting noises*

"Democrat bad, conservative good"

3/30/2017 3:39:38 PM

Quote :

"typically if a leftist says "it's been disproven" that means it is legit and they are pissed."

lol, it admits how retarded its "logic" is.

3/30/2017 4:09:32 PM

Quote :

"Everyone on this page is doing both you dolt."

Right, because when you can't make a substantive argument refuting the fact that PP admitted to selling fetal tissues, you need to resort to discrediting the source reporting the facts. Come back when you have something refuting the actual words spoken by several of the PP representatives. PP even admits that they do it, so I am not sure what you are arguing about.

^Somehow, you have convinced yourself that murdering an unborn baby is acceptable. So please continue criticizing others logical fallacies.

[Edited on March 30, 2017 at 4:19 PM. Reason : 1`]

3/30/2017 4:16:41 PM

Fetal tissue cannot be sold. Donating tissue, with reimbursement for the expense, is allowed:

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

Quote :

"In a statement made to CNN, another presidential candidate, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, called the practice discussed in the video a “clear violation of federal law.” The “sale” of organs, both adult and fetal, for transplantation is indeed illegal, but donation of tissue — both from aborted fetuses and from adults — is not. And payment for “reasonable” costs is also allowed under the law."

See? Sourcing! It's amazing.

/ibt liberal rag rants.

3/30/2017 4:34:19 PM

Quote :

"^Somehow, you have convinced yourself that murdering an unborn baby is acceptable. So please continue criticizing others logical fallacies."

if abortion is murder, why aren't doctors who perform abortions charged with murder?

3/30/2017 4:44:31 PM

^ That's a silly argument man, I don't understand why you thought that is a decent counterpoint.

In a country where abortions were outlawed you would think it'd be plausible to also pass legislation to make administering one a capital crime. It's a matter of legislation not principal.

[Edited on March 30, 2017 at 5:00 PM. Reason : derp]

3/30/2017 4:59:45 PM

Quote :

"Right, because when you can't make a substantive argument refuting the fact that PP admitted to selling fetal tissues,"

We were making fun of you for calling those people journalists.

Try and keep up.

3/30/2017 5:01:32 PM

Quote :

"It's a matter of legislation not principal."

it's both

3/30/2017 5:05:01 PM

Quote :

"Somehow, you have convinced yourself that murdering an unborn baby is acceptable."

are you against plan B?

3/30/2017 5:32:03 PM

I think the PP videos are more of a litmus test than anything else for the abortion discussion. I personally don't think O'Keefe can be trusted given his history with video editing but I guess if you like his rhetoric you can see past it. I was surprised snopes reported it was basically an argument over who you want to trust, the accusers or PP:

http://www.snopes.com/pp-baby-parts-sale/

3/31/2017 8:56:28 AM

^^Do you believe that the birth canal contains some sort of magic element that grants babies personhood?

^PP has admitted that the videos were not edited out of context.

So, surprisingly, nobody mentioned the Senate overturning an Obama Administration regulation forcing states to fund abortion mills like Planned Parenthood. Good day for unborn babies.

3/31/2017 10:16:45 AM

didn't answer my question

3/31/2017 10:25:08 AM

Can you show me a source of PP saying they are not edited? I only found statements of them saying they were edited in the five minutes I tried googling. Thanks.

3/31/2017 11:17:16 AM

Not surprising that the group that wants to kill babies also wants to take your first Amendment rights.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/opinion/supreme-court-abortion-first-amendment.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

My prediction: the pregnancy centers lose this one.

3/21/2018 10:02:57 AM

Not surprised a male conservative is beating his chest about this.

3/21/2018 10:15:08 AM

hes’s Dallas Woodhouse with a bit of Ted Cruz thrown in there for good (bad) measure

3/21/2018 10:45:09 AM

I wonder what his position is on giving single moms food stamps and/or WIC?

3/21/2018 12:28:20 PM

Not surprising that the group that wants to kill babies women barefoot also wants to take your first Amendment rights and destroy your medical privacy.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/idaho-require-personal-details-women-abortions-53949963

Quote :

"providers now will be mandated by law to report a woman's age, race, how many children she has, if any of their children have died and how many abortions they have had in the past. "

And Drs are now required to give medically dubious advice to their patients before performing the procedure:

Quote :

"Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter signed the legislation Thursday, just two days after approving a measure requiring women seeking abortions to be informed that the drug-induced procedures can be halted halfway. That is despite opposition from medical groups that say there is little evidence to support that claim."

My prediction: the Christofascists lose this one.

3/23/2018 3:48:13 PM

Quote :

"Not surprising that the group that wants to kill babies also wants to take your first Amendment rights."

Not surprising that a group that wants to force women to bring children into this world, even under the worst of conditions, will do so without wanting to provide any support in raising that child if the single mother is unable to do it all on her own.

4/3/2018 3:36:23 AM

^^ I am not a constitutional scholar, like the rest of TWW, but I would think that would violate the 4th amendment. However, since this is already occurring in some form in over 20 states, maybe the legality does actually hold up.

^Tired argument is tired.

4/3/2018 12:36:09 PM

It's only tired because republicans keep it relevant

4/3/2018 12:48:36 PM

The problem with the abortion debate is that it relies far too heavily on religious affiliations. Christian evangelicals love to quote the bible as a reason for why we should have this law and that law, when the bible doesn't actually say the things they think it does.

My favorite is when they use Leviticus as a reason for one thing, but ignore the rest of the Hebrew Bible as "obsolete" for everything else.

4/3/2018 1:26:55 PM

for HCH

https://youtu.be/4NNpkv3Us1I

4/9/2018 4:10:30 PM

As one would expect, the right is going nuts over the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. I imagine that "infanticide" will be the issue du jour during the 2020 election.

2/26/2019 8:07:32 AM

republicans are so fucking stupid they will be mad about the bill

2/26/2019 8:44:09 AM

It sucks that Dems want to kill newborns and harvest their parts though.

2/26/2019 10:36:53 AM

^^^May I ask why this bill was even written? Is there any state, any law, any doctor that will somehow do harm to a baby that survived an abortion?

2/28/2019 1:42:02 PM

Gotta keep evangelicals on the Trump train.

2/28/2019 2:15:01 PM

^^ same reason the bill was written the last time and the time before, etc... the republican platform lacks any substance except guns and abortion so that's all they can do to keep people voting for them

2/28/2019 2:18:21 PM

Can someone briefly explain to me what happened (i know, i know, google and all).

I keep seeing all over social media (and from family members) references to democrats voting to allow the killing of born babies. What are they talking about?

Thanks in advance.

2/28/2019 2:19:51 PM

I'm not sure exactly what the reason was for authoring this recent bill.

A generous explanation would be that Republicans felt that this 2002 bill was insufficiently strict with regard to how it dictated doctor and patient behavior:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Infants_Protection_Act

I feel that the more accurate explanation is that Republicans wanted to be able to campaign in 2020 against Democrats for voting to kill babies or commit "infanticide," if you will.


^ Here is the text of the two bills, if you'd like to compare them.

The 2002 Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was passed and signed into law:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2175/text

The 2019 Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which Senate Democrats voted down:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/311/text

[Edited on February 28, 2019 at 2:33 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2019 2:20:02 PM

Quote :

"I keep seeing all over social media (and from family members) references to democrats voting to allow the killing of born babies. What are they talking about?"

democrats voted that since it's already illegal to kill a baby (double illegal really because of the also unnecessary 2002 law), we don't need another law about it especially not one that could risk doctors getting in trouble for doing their jobs because of it's vague language

2/28/2019 3:06:40 PM

@Bullet - they may also be talking about the VA governor talking about the late term abortion law passed in NY, which VA has a similar bill tabled right now. He made the comment below:

Quote :

""The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother." "

Which certainly sounds like a discussion regarding born-alive abortions.

I looked for his clarification on the matter and his statements were vague politician speak.

2/28/2019 3:52:02 PM

I imagine that the discussion between the physician and the mother would be similar to the discussion that would be had between a physician and any person or persons whose family member was being kept on life support.

Is the expectation of the pro-life movement that the child would be kept on life support indefinitely?

[Edited on February 28, 2019 at 4:25 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2019 4:25:04 PM

Quote :

"Is the expectation of the pro-life movement that the child would be kept on life support indefinitely?"

terri schiavo would say yes

2/28/2019 4:45:40 PM

Well, she would if she hadn't been murdered.

2/28/2019 5:47:40 PM

Goddamn Ralph Northam has been nothing but trouble since he got into office, and his half-cocked, politically imbecile explanation of the abortion bill is the worst of it (and may well have triggered the blackface fiasco). The only problem is, I don't know if you're better off hounding him out of office or leaving him where he is, which seems the most likely outcome regardless.

2/28/2019 7:12:27 PM

^^^^ I think it's the expectation of the pro-life movement that the "doctor" not attempt to slaughter the child in the womb, thus negating the need for the child to be kept on life support.

2/28/2019 9:20:02 PM

My understanding is that a significant number of late-term abortions are the result of abnormalities during prenatal development and that the children would have likely required life support even had they been brought to term.

The mother’s health is, of course, another common factor as to why a late-term abortion would be necessary. I’ve read some horrific stories about mothers who wanted their children to be born but had to suffer through circumstances that were largely outside of their control.

Also, why put doctor in quotes? You do realize that women’s health is an actual medical field, right?

[Edited on March 1, 2019 at 12:33 AM. Reason : ]

3/1/2019 12:13:22 AM