DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Planned Parenthood and the Sale of Fetal Body Parts

i simply can't take crap you say seriously.

you wanna protect unborn babies, but have no problem wanting to nuke areas with a bunch of already born babies.

I would lay my life down for my Country, why would I not destroy an enemy who is causing me to lay down my life?
Babies dying in war is not by choice, tearing them out of their mothers and harvesting their parts is an abomination.

I would think you would know the difference.

They do. Federal money can't fund abortions. Abortions are only 3% of their total services anyway.

everything is a choice. you couldn't possibly be serious with your comment.

babies dying in war is not by choice?

.........

Think for a moment. Put down the Blunt and think.

In a war,
You bomb a city and everyone dies, including babies.

Abortion is specifically targeting a baby.

Carry on with the blunt.

So are you against bombing babies or nah?

i repeat, you want to nuke areas with women and children.

it's a choice. nuking a place, killing thousands/millions over a few thousand insurgents?

maybe you should roll one up.

i don't have an opinion on you guys thinking abortion is wrong or not. whatever.

but don't claim you for the rights of unborn babies, then give two craps about the babies when they're finally born.

No. I don't wish to bomb la bomba.

Liberals Hate us cuz they ain't us.
-40

For the life of me I can't even think of a place you could Nuke without killing children. If we are at war and the Military needs a Nuke to win, so be it.
What is it you wish me to say?

Oh no, which one of you liberals taught 40 post-80 vernacular.

You have to watch out for those...



They're everywhere.

Attention:
No Babies were harmed in the Bombing of this factory.

And you should flush that Eightball!

That's awful Christian of you.

War is war, there are always going to be casualties. This is why most of us don't like wars. War become necessary when inaction could lead something even worse. WW1 and WW2 taught us that being isolationist doesn't work because the idiots that run these other countries love to drag us into their wars one way or another.

None of that has anything to do with abortion and the murder of innocent unborn children. Abortion should not be allowed except in cases of rape, incest, or the mother's life is in jeopardy.

But how do they milk the babies?

I like this game. Let's say we do nuke Tehran and a couple of our least favorite nuke sites of theirs. If we stay away from the oil, so we don't irradiate it, do you really think Russia and China will care? We can pacify them by turning a blind eye, so they can take care of their Chechen and Uighur problem. I don't think any country other than North Korea will miss them.

you think i care what russia or china or whatever the hell country thinks?

In America we claim the moral high ground.
"
that isn't the moral high ground. we become just as barbaric as the "enemy" we claim we're fighting against if we do dumb ass things like that.

If we ever seriously launch nukes we wont have time to care about what PP did... We'd be launching ourselves back into the stone age

I didn't know Planned Parenthood had nukes... when did this conversations turn?

Call it 'research,' not 'business,' Planned Parenthood doc says in latest sting video

A woman identified as Dr. Savita Ginde talks with undercover activists in the latest video targeting Planned Parenthood. (Center for Medical Progress)
A Colorado Planned Parenthood doctor stresses calling the harvesting of fetal tissue "research" and not "business" -- and casually pokes around in a petri dish of aborted remains as a colleague exclaims, "Another boy!" -- in the latest video released Thursday by an activist group whose hidden camera stings have imperiled the embattled nonprofit's taxpayer funding.

The video’s release by the Center for Medical Progress comes a day after CMP was issued a restraining order preventing it from issuing any new footage of a group that worked with Planned Parenthood, StemExpress. But Thursday’s material focuses almost entirely on a woman identified as Dr. Savita Ginde, the vice president and medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

"A lot of times, especially with the second [trimester fetuses], we won’t even put water, because it’s so big you can put your hand in there and pick out the parts.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/30/cal...o/?intcmp=hpbt1

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: A better way to oppose abortion

Serious opponents of abortion should be lined up to support birth control clinics. They should sponsor sex education programs. They should help mothers find work so they can feed and educate their children.

They shouldn’t be using hidden cameras to obtain secret video of doctors who work for Planned Parenthood discussing the distribution of fetal tissue and body parts with people who have misrepresented themselves.

Those tactics are more about gotcha politics and about defunding a nonprofit organization that provides services to women and poor people than they are about helping women prevent unwanted pregnancies.

As the late Dr. Alan Guttmacher, former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and a leader in the International Planned Parenthood Federation, wrote after the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion, “Those who oppose and those who favor legalization of abortion share a common goal — the elimination of all abortion,” through better, safer, cheaper contraception.

“Each abortion bespeaks medical or social failure,” he wrote.

Donating fetal tissue is a lifesaving effort and the women who choose to do so should be commended, not treated like they are participating in a criminal undertaking. Fetal tissue is used for medical research to help find treatments and cures for diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.

Taking politics out of abortion would go a long way toward prevention. That’s where the nation should be headed.

Excerpted from an editorial published this week in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Link to full article - http://stltoday.com/news/opinion/editori...bile_touch=true

-----

Birth control and sex education do much better to prevent abortions than heavily edited, out of context gotcha videos.

Sex Ed is the law in every public US school I can think of. How has that helped?

Many schools hand out condoms? How has that helped?

Is the sum of out of wedlock births plus abortions fallen, or risen over the past 3 decades or so?

I don't disagree that we need to do a better job educating kids, but that education should include abstinence and also the consequences of having sex as entertainment, having a child at a young age, and the emotional consequences of abortion.

However, most of these are ignored, and thus we have tons of births out of wedlock, and tons of abortion each and every year.

The abortion rate is falling.

http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2014/02/03/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/american-abortion-rate-decline/395960/

We can give some of that credit to organizations like and including Planned Parenthood.

Abstinence-only sex education has proven to be a failure and the literature backs it up. Look up the states where it's taught and reference that with the states with the highest teen pregnancy rates. Take a guess at which states generally have the highest rates of teen pregnancy. I'll give you a hint - it's the states with abstinence only sex education programs.

http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/What%20the%20Research%20Says-Ab-Only.doc
http://mic.com/articles/98886/the-states...thing-in-common

Facts are good. What must be gone are the emotional shock messages that carry little to no factual or logical backing.

I agree. This whole business about Planned Parenthood is nothing more than emotional reactionism. I liken the reactions and statements of the doctors and personnel in the video to how people react in their work environment with other professionals in the same field (including those that are misrepresenting themselves). We don't give emotional responses to TPS reports or orders for building materials. In much the same way, doctors do not give emotional responses to situations involving humans. They deal with the situation at hand and move on, much the same as any of us would in our own professions.

For example, say are a contractor or a working in an office and someone that you work with asks you a question. Are you going to give an emotional response to your question about how great or how sad you feel about framing a door or creating a report? Probably not. The reality is you are going to probably give a clinical, straightforward response and you may even add some dark humor as well. "Oh, if I have to write one more report I'm going to kill myself" or "If I have to hang one more door I'm going to throw Jimmy off a bridge." Is the dark humor warranted or professional? Is it serious? No, probably not but it's something we all do to get through our mundane day jobs as a coping mechanism, particulalrly in a field of work where one might deal with a high number of negative situations.

Just wonderful. We kill a child and harvest her organs to help another person to live a better.
What is next? Perhaps a nutritional supplement you can take to make you live 10 years longer?

You stand by in support of this Barbarism while blaming the folks who filmed the great lie.

Disgusting. I will now return to the "Lion" thread and see the outrage over an animal's death.

Soylent Green is babies!!!!

If it's all donation for science, should PP be selling their ill begotten product? Do these women that 'donate' this 'clump of cells' know where those cells are going? Do you know they can clone stem cells now? Where's our president saying, 'if it could save just one life'?

The abortion rate has been steadily declining since 1980. Out of wedlock births have been declining since 2007, with its only rise in women over 35. Teen pregnancy has also declined very sharply since 1991. And abstinence education has proven time and time again to be a massive failure that actually leads to higher rates of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

All I can say is that if you require someone else to act in order for you to have a right, it is not a right. Rights are inherent in the person. It requires the person to do nothing to have it. It does not require another to act for you to have it.

For example, I have the right to have free speech. I can exercise that right by speaking or I can not exercise my right by being silent. Do I lose my right to free speech if I am silent? Do I gain a right if another speaks on my behalf? The answer is obviously NO. A woman does not gain a right to women's healthcare based on the fact that she is a woman. She can seek healthcare as her right to life but she cannot force another to act to give her healthcare as a right. What about the right of the healthcare provider? Can they deny her healthcare? Can a woman force a doctor to see her as a patient? Can the government do so? Again, the answer is obviously NO. Therefore, healthcare can not be a right.

A parent should not rely on the schools education to be their "birds and the bees" talk. This goes for parents who are pro-abstinence as well as pro-safe sex education. Youth enrolled in abstinence programs have sex at the same age as those in other programs. They don't abstain from sex. To make it worse, students in abstinence programs are less likely to use condoms when they inevitably have sex.

It seems to me that parents who want abstinence only programs want to avoid the birds and bees talk, and that's not good parenting. I would rather a teacher teach about the technical basis behind things like STI's and babies being delivered, and then myself talk to my son about the consequences of having sex, what will change in his life etc. My parents did a good job of instilling that in me, that I wouldn't be able to go to college, or probably even finish high school. A loving parent will always do better than a teacher and instilling fear in a child where needed

If out of wedlock births have declined since 2007, it is only because they have reached such a high level since then.

Here is the trend leading up to 2007:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.pdf

The out of wedlock rate nearly doubled from 1980 to 2007, according the to 1st chart on the CDC site.

According to Pew, the rate has declined since it peaked in 2008 (52 out of 1000 live births) to 45 in 2012. That is still higher than in 2007.

Out of wedlock births reached an all time high, and then receded slightly.

While abortions have declined, and that truly is wonderful news, there ate still over 1 million innocent children killed each day in abortive procedures. 54-55 million have been exterminated since 1973.

Plus, and this is important, abortion has been in general decline for decades. There were 1.6 million abortions in 1990, and the general trend has been downward since then. That does not mean that somehow abortion has ended. Thank God fewer people are killing their own children. I can remember reading about some ancient civilizations who threw their own children into live volcanoes and such, and being appalled. Well, we still throw 1 million into the body parts "for sale" pile of Planned Parenthood each year.

I do believe that a lot of the things that groups have done, from blatantly explaining and even showing the death procedure, in graphic detail, has helped the abortion rate decline. The fact that so many women have come forth to discuss the emotional consequences of abortion has also helped. I don't think that it's some wonderful series of events that have led people to make better decisions, but rather that they now know the consequences of their actions, and that they can hurt in ways they had never considered before.

Looking at those numbers, the vast majority of out of wedlock births are happening between 20-29. The problem numbers - mothers 15-19, is down. You would have to examine case in detail to find out if there is a boyfriend or partner in the mix, and compare those numbers to socioeconomic status, but if you did that, I think you'd find a trend of milennials simply not getting married. I've seen quite a bit of that amongst my colleagues and students. They are in a relationship, sometimes even have long-term live-in partners, they just aren't married. If you look at the chart comparing out-of-wedlock births to other selected countries, you see Iceland, Sweden, Norway, France, Denmark and the U.K. all ahead of us. Not exactly third-world hellholes. So I do think the trends are more towards younger couples deciding not to get married than it is teen pregnancies. I do, however, feel it gets more problematic in cultures of poverty, but that's a socioeconomic issue. But to answer your earlier questions, yes, sex education and education of disease and condom use have made a considerable and tangible difference for the better. Advocating more abstinence education is like advocating more of us return to the horse and buggy as a means of transportation.

In admit that trying to teach abstinence at this point is akin to trying to stuff the proverbial genie back in the proverbial bottle ...... but it is an important aspect of sex education. If it reaches 5% of kids, then it is more than worthwhile. You may think that anyone having sex with anyone else at any age is perfectly fine, but I do not. In fact, it can create many problems, especially in the areas of self esteem. I think that we need to remove the "sex is entertainment" idea from sex education, and from our society as well. (at least as best as we can) I hope that we can find a way to remove much of the smut that is available online, and that kids of any age can access. There is no need for a 13 year old to be watching porn. None. We have to change what kids learn if we want to change outcomes.

it actually hasn't.

i remember sex ed.....teacher more or less: "don't have sex, you'll get aids and die".

well....ok. had sex, still here.

education on protection and such goes a longer way than just telling kids to be abstinent.

and an educated population typically have lower birth rates, especially a young ages.

it's a damn shame Iran has figured that out before we have.

Where did I say anything to lead you to that idea? I merely pointed out that the data tables you provided most likely indicated a shift away from young people choosing to get married. The problems like a lack of proper education amongst the poorer classes are the crux of the issue.



Where in public or private school sex education curriculum is there a push towards "sex as entertainment"? The gist of any modern sex education I've ever seen has been "If you're going to have sex, this is what you should know."

That's weird because I took sex ed more than 20 years before you did and in a fairly conservative area and at the height of the initial AIDS scare... and we learned about all forms of contraceptives, their effectiveness, and various diseases and the odds of contracting one and all of that.


I'm not even sure what that means... should we make sex before marriage illegal?