Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Options
24567…124

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Lifenews, source their news from other agencies and credit them. I wonder why you led your references with Gawker and then added the Guardian? (whose piece is very similar to International Business Times page last night and includes Dr. Caplan's quotes)

    At least now, you are admitting that there may be some things of concern raised in the video; a slight change from your stance last night that it is just misrepresentation.

    No point asking me about the methodology the group chose. I questioned if the authorities were informed first but maybe in American Society, it is better to garner Public attention first. Planned Parenthood are a very large Corporation with many influential members, advocates and benefactors.
    According to the IBT last night, the Dr. Nuc...? at the centre of the case has gone "off the grid": twitter and FB pages cancelled (but her linkedin page remains open) and the President of the Corporation has already publicly defended her. Their PR machine went straight to work.

    Recent history shows that going to the authorities first with evidence can be as fraught in America, as it is in Ireland.

    The state authorities are often beholden to certain"interests". And their indebtedness to those "interests" often determine whether or not an investigation is allowed to take place and whether or not charges are made.

    Of course going to the media first with evidence runs the serious risk of prejudicing future trials of the accused.

    No doubt Planned Parenthood are working on such a strategy.


  • Options
    #33
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Does preserving the sanctity of life mean compulsory donation of organs, bone marrow and blood from the living and the dead should be in place so the born can live?


  • Options
    #34
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    SW wrote: »
    Yes. And I see no definitive evidence of selling of body parts.

    I saw mention of the $30-$100 value but that was explained as probably transport/storage costs in my link.

    :confused:

    Hold on a second... They are PAYING for free abortions and using the dead babies organs and body parts and SELLING those parts.

    Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards earns 3 times as much as President Obama.

    Your biased pro-choice arguments don't stand up.

    They are commercial entity making money by killing children.


  • Options
    #35
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    am946745 wrote: »

    Your biased pro-choice arguments don't stand up.
    The hell does pro choice have to do with organ selling? Your desire to link the two as a means to strengthen the pro life agenda says more about you than any stories you link to. This forum really is a parody.


  • Options
    #36
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    K4t wrote: »
    The hell does pro choice have to do with organ selling? Your desire to link the two as a means to strengthen the pro life agenda says more about you than any stories you link to. This forum really is a parody.

    Because SW has consistently sided with the Pro-choice side on several threads.

    What has pro-choice got to do with organ selling? Well once you intentionally kill the child the next step follows quickly. Planned Parenthood are still defending their actions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    am946745 wrote: »
    Hold on a second... They are PAYING for free abortions and using the dead babies organs and body parts and SELLING those parts.

    Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards earns 3 times as much as President Obama.

    They are commercial entity making money by killing children.

    Where's your evidence they're selling body parts? The video certainly doesn't support the claim of illegal sales by Planned Parenthood.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #38
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    am946745 wrote: »
    Because SW has consistently sided with the Pro-choice side on several threads.
    Which merely proves that SW has sense, and of course the ability to form their own opinion on different matters without being subject to Christian doctrine.
    What has pro-choice got to do with organ selling? Well once you intentionally kill the child the next step follows quickly. Planned Parenthood are still defending their actions.
    No - The answer is it has nothing to do with organ selling; just as pro life has nothing to do with organ selling. Reading your posts is more sickening than anything you link to.


  • Options
    #39
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    am946745 wrote: »
    What has pro-choice got to do with organ selling? Well once you intentionally kill the child the next step follows quickly. Planned Parenthood are still defending their actions.
    Wrong. Planned Parenthood have denied any selling of body parts.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #40
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    lazygal wrote: »
    Does preserving the sanctity of life mean compulsory donation of organs, bone marrow and blood from the living and the dead should be in place so the born can live?
    If it's "compulsory" it's not a donation.
    A mother donating her dead child's organs isn't in the same boat as a mother terminating her child, but doing it in such a fashion that the organs are viable for 'sale'.

    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    And yet no comments on using lifenews as a source. Pots and kettles.
    LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community.
    Do you propose that pro-life related stories only be supplied from media sources that you personally approve of?


  • Options
    #41
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community.
    Do you propose that pro-life related stories only be supplied from media sources that you personally approve of?

    Well usually it's a good start to find news sites that have some level of impartiality.

    Using a story from a site that opposes abortion to highlight alledged improprieties of an abortion service provider is not really sensible.

    Use actual news sites rather than a pro-life group blog.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    SW wrote: »
    Wrong. Planned Parenthood have denied any selling of body parts.

    Yeah right.. All the work for free.. Right.

    They admit they use ultrasound to avoid damaging the organs they want to harvest from the dead babies.
    Planned parenthood:- we have been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not going to crush that part.

    Where is your critical thinking here? They haven't denied what the person is saying in the video is false. She is their employee. They are commercial entity that pays their CEO over 600K.

    They are making money from abortions. They are harvesting organs from Children they Kill.

    You can't hide from the facts.


  • Options
    #43
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    am946745 wrote: »
    Yeah right.. All the work for free.. Right.
    how about dropping the sarcasm and discussing the topic?
    They admit they use ultrasound to avoid damaging the organs they want to harvest from the dead babies.
    Agreed. But that doesn't mean any illegal is happening.
    Where is your critical thinking here? They haven't denied what the person is saying in the video is false. She is their employee. They are commercial entity that pays their CEO over 600K.
    Huh? I've posted a link from the Guardian where Planned Parenthood have stated explicity that there is no truth to the claims.
    They are making money from abortions. They are harvesting organs from Children they Kill.
    Yes, where the woman agrees to donate the organs.
    You can't hide from the facts.
    I'm not, I'm disputing the supported claim of illegal sales of body parts.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #44
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    SW wrote: »
    Huh? I've posted a link from the Guardian where Planned Parenthood have stated explicity that there is no truth to the claims.

    So planned parenthood have come out said the person who said those words that I quoted was lying?


  • Options
    #45
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    SW wrote: »

    Yes, where the woman agrees to donate the organs.



    and in the process did not have to pay for the abortion...


  • Options
    #46
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    am946745 wrote: »
    So planned parenthood have come out said the person who said those words that I quoted was lying?

    As posted earlier in thread:
    “In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different,” Planned Parenthood’s vice president for communications, Eric Ferrero, said in a statement.


    “There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood,” the statement said. “In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.”
    Planned Parenthood called the allegation “false” and said such claims have been “put forth by opponents of abortion services for decades”.


    The organization blamed the video on a “well funded group established for the purpose of damaging” the abortion provider’s reputation.
    Source

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #47
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    SW wrote: »
    As posted earlier in thread:

    Source

    Hmmm. So they have said the person speaking in the video is lying. Correct?


  • Options
    #48
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    am946745 wrote: »
    and in the process did not have to pay for the abortion...
    :confused::confused:

    what are you on about?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #49
    am946745
    Closed Accounts Posts: 676 ✭✭✭am946745


    SW wrote: »
    :confused::confused:

    what are you on about?


    The Tissue and organs that were harvested from the dead babies were not done after a "standard" abortion. The consent was given prior to the abortion. The procedure was adjusted accordingly, the women did not have to pay of the procedure. (as it took slightly longer, with ultrasound etc.. )

    I'm not inventing this, it is what they have admitted and you are defending it seems.

    I mean we have animal rights people up in harms about killing for leather.. or testing on animals.. And here we have people killing healthy children and using their organs.. to MAKE A PROFIT!!!.


  • Options
    #50
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    am946745 wrote: »
    The Tissue and organs that were harvested from the dead babies were not done after a "standard" abortion. The consent was given prior to the abortion. The procedure was adjusted accordingly, the women did not have to pay of the procedure. (as it took slightly longer, with ultrasound etc.. )

    I'm not inventing this, it is what they have admitted and you are defending it seems.

    I mean we have animal rights people up in harms about killing for leather.. or testing on animals.. And here we have people killing healthy children and using their organs.. to MAKE A PROFIT!!!.
    I've accepted (and even provided links to support it) that abortions were carried out in a non-standard way to avoid damaging any organs. So I've no idea how you think I'm defending it.

    You've yet to provide any evidence of illegal sales of body tissue. Would you care to do so seeing as you've made the claim once again?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #51
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    SW wrote: »
    Well usually it's a good start to find news sites that have some level of impartiality.

    Using a story from a site that opposes abortion to highlight alledged improprieties of an abortion service provider is not really sensible.

    Use actual news sites rather than a pro-life group blog.


    Therefore,
    Independent.ie is an Irish newspaper; therefore it is not impartial when reporting matters concerning Ireland. It must be rejected as an impartial source for Irish matters.
    Munsterrugby.ie is the website for Munster Rugby; it cannot be impartial when it supplies news about Munster rugby. It must be rejected as an impartial source for Munster rugby matters.
    Do I need to keep typing for you to understand the flaws in your reasoning?


    The original link was to Lifenews; you yourself chose a Guardian source this morning and I could have supplied an IBT source last night.
    Has any of the 'impartial' sources disproved or denounced the story as a fabrication? If you choose not to believe something based on the website it appears on, that's your business. Don't try to censor everyone else in the process...'only the Guardian is reputable', 'only Gawker is reputable...twenty-three million fashionistas can't be wrong!'

    But feel free to supply us with a list of credible and acceptable sources.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    am946745 wrote: »
    Hmmm. So they have said the person speaking in the video is lying. Correct?
    No, as the person doesn't state that Planned Parenthood are illegally selling body tissue.

    They're saying that the pro-lfe groups are lying.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #53
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Therefore,
    Independent.ie is an Irish newspaper; therefore it is not impartial when reporting matters concerning Ireland. It must be rejected as an impartial source for Irish matters.
    Munsterrugby.ie is the website for Munster Rugby; it cannot be impartial when it supplies news about Munster rugby. It must be rejected as an impartial source for Munster rugby matters.
    Do I need to keep typing for you to understand the flaws in your reasoning?
    That is some truly weird interpretation of my post.

    Try this: When sourcing news reports, use news websites.
    The original link was to Lifenews; you yourself chose a Guardian source this morning and I could have supplied an IBT source last night.
    Has any of the 'impartial' sources disproved or denounced the story as a fabrication? If you choose not to believe something based on the website it appears on, that's your business. Don't try to censor everyone else in the process...'only the Guardian is reputable', 'only Gawker is reputable...twenty-three million fashionistas can't be wrong!'
    Once again in the hope of it sinking in..... When sourcing news reports, use news websites.
    But feel free to supply us with a list of credible and acceptable sources.
    See above.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #54
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    LifeNews.com is an independent news agency devoted to reporting news that affects the pro-life community.
    Do you propose that pro-life related stories only be supplied from media sources that you personally approve of?

    They are a pro life website. They are probably going to be a little bit biased.

    If you want to work backwards from your conclusion on abortion and attempt to find information that backs you up Im sure these websites are great. If a person prefers to look at a situation and then draw a conclusion from the facts I would rather not read a website which promotes on side or the other. Plus the OP doesn't have the best record of presenting facts correctly.


  • Options
    #55
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    SW wrote: »
    Where's your evidence they're selling body parts? The video certainly doesn't support the claim of illegal sales by Planned Parenthood.

    Did you manage to watch the full video yet?


  • Options
    #56
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    am946745 wrote: »
    Hold on a second... They are PAYING for free abortions and using the dead babies organs and body parts and SELLING those parts.

    Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Cecile Richards earns 3 times as much as President Obama.

    Your biased pro-choice arguments don't stand up.

    They are commercial entity making money by killing children.

    Arguments which are anti-Christian too.


  • Options
    #57
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    K4t wrote: »
    The hell does pro choice have to do with organ selling? Your desire to link the two as a means to strengthen the pro life agenda says more about you than any stories you link to. This forum really is a parody.

    Pro Choice advocates support "clinics" which kill unborn human life and, apparently according to the Planned Parenthood chief medical officer, kill partially born human lives as well. All for profit.


  • Options
    #58
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    Did you manage to watch the full video yet?
    no. 2.5 hours is a big chunk of time to put aside to watch a video. Part of the reason I asked if it has any additional revelations to the 8 min video.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #59
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    SW wrote: »
    Well usually it's a good start to find news sites that have some level of impartiality.

    Using a story from a site that opposes abortion to highlight alledged improprieties of an abortion service provider is not really sensible.

    Use actual news sites rather than a pro-life group blog.

    Usually it's a better idea to watch the full video in order to acquaint oneself with the facts.

    Have you managed to watch the full video yet? Did you watch the full video before you started posting again to this thread?


  • Options
    #60
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    SW wrote: »
    no. 2.5 hours is a big chunk of time to put aside to watch a video. .

    So you're still posting assertions about the video, without being acquainted with the entire content of the video.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    Usually it's a better idea to watch the full video in order to acquaint oneself with the facts.

    Have you managed to watch the full video yet? Did you watch the full video before you started posting again to this thread?
    hinault wrote: »
    So you're still posting assertions about the video, without being acquainted with the entire content of the video.:rolleyes:

    ??

    I'm posting assertions based on the 8 minute video I watched. As well as the information provided by pro-life posters here and links I've posted myself.

    Feel free to indicate what errors I've posted that are contrary to the 2.5 hour video.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



Advertisement