Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

hinault

SW wrote: »

??
I'm posting assertions based on the 8 minute video I watched.

I kinda gathered that you were posting comments on this thread in a knowledge vacuum several hours ago. You and I discussed this earlier.

And it is evident that you're still posting comments in that same vacuum.:rolleyes:

I advised you earlier to watch the entire video, so that you can acquaint yourself with the facts and make relevant comments.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

I kinda gathered that you were posting comments on this thread in a knowledge vacuum several hours ago. You and I discussed this earlier.

And it is evident that you're still posting comments in that same vacuum.:rolleyes:

I advised you earlier to watch the entire video, so that you can acquaint yourself with the facts and make relevant comments.

So watching the video that started this discussion (i.e. the 8 minute video), reading pro-life links and news reports is posting from a knowledge vacuum?

plus there's a full transcript of the video (which dipping in and out of)

hinault

SW wrote: »

So watching the video that started this discussion (i.e. the 8 minute video), reading pro-life links and news reports is posting from a knowledge vacuum?

Yes. Especially so given the fact that you have not watched the entire video and are not acquainted with all of the facts presented in the video, prior to commenting here.

lazybones32

SW wrote: »

That is some truly weird interpretation of my post.

Try this: When sourcing news reports, use news websites.


Once again in the hope of it sinking in..... When sourcing news reports, use news websites.


See above.

You were speaking of impartiality and how you don't accept the reports of an organisation because you think they are partial. Yet I'm sure you don't apply these same rules and criteria to other news reports: do you dismiss the Irish Independents reporting of Irish issues because they are an Irish-based paper? Surely, we can only get impartial news from an outside source, unaffected by interests or whose vision isn't clouded because of their proximity to events.(let me know if I need to simplify and explain it more)

Yeah...it's redundant for you to say others should supply only news websites for links when you, yourself, have posted a fashion website as a source. I'm sure it was posted for genuine reasons and not because it was the best/only web page that countered the claims that were posted on Lifenews "an independent news agency". (that last part is from Lifenews "about us" section...they claim to be those things, not me)
But continue back-pedalling...I find it amusing.

lazybones32

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

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.

If a person reaches a conclusion on an issue, why shouldn't they argue that position? Why is it that when a person is pro-life, they're biased but if they're pro-abortion, they're "open-minded" or somehow more partial?
Your thoughts that pro-life people just seek stats, pages, reports to confirm their own viewpoint is part of your own bias. I didn't "work backwards" in concluding that abortion is evil.

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

You were speaking of impartiality and how you don't accept the reports of an organisation because you think they are partial. Yet I'm sure you don't apply these same rules and criteria to other news reports: do you dismiss the Irish Independents reporting of Irish issues because they are an Irish-based paper? Surely, we can only get impartial news from an outside source, unaffected by interests or whose vision isn't clouded because of their proximity to events.(let me know if I need to simplify and explain it more)

Yeah...it's redundant for you to say others should supply only news websites for links when you, yourself, have posted a fashion website as a source. I'm sure it was posted for genuine reasons and not because it was the best/only web page that countered the claims that were posted on Lifenews "an independent news agency". (that last part is from Lifenews "about us" section...they claim to be those things, not me)
But continue back-pedalling...I find it amusing.

*sigh*

LifeNews.com are a pro-life website, i.e. oppose abortion.

Is Indepedent.ie an equivalent with regard to Ireland? I'm not aware of them being regarded as an anti-Irish news-site so not seeing the relevance.

I've posted links from Gawker, CNN and the Guardian. None of which are pro-choice equivalents to LifeNews.com.

anothernight

lazybones32 wrote: »

You were speaking of impartiality and how you don't accept the reports of an organisation because you think they are partial. Yet I'm sure you don't apply these same rules and criteria to other news reports: do you dismiss the Irish Independents reporting of Irish issues because they are an Irish-based paper? Surely, we can only get impartial news from an outside source, unaffected by interests or whose vision isn't clouded because of their proximity to events.(let me know if I need to simplify and explain it more)

The Irish Independent doesn't have as its only goal to support an argument for or against the Irish nation. You will see articles on their website that portray Ireland on a good and a bad light on any given day. Lifenews declares itself a "pro-life news source", i.e., its goal is to support the pro-life cause, and therefore they will happily cherry-pick their news so that pro-choice is always shown as the bad option. Can you honestly not see the difference?

hinault

anothernight wrote: »

The Irish Independent doesn't have as its only goal to support an argument for or against the Irish nation. You will see articles on their website that portray Ireland on a good and a bad light on any given day. Lifenews declares itself a "pro-life news source", i.e., its goal is to support the pro-life cause, and therefore they will happily cherry-pick their news so that pro-choice is always shown as the bad option. Can you honestly not see the difference?

Most media, rightly or wrongly, adopt a given editorial line on certain issues.

Did you watch the entire 2+ hours video?
If you did, what are your thoughts about the content of same?

Timberrrrrrrr

lazybones32 wrote: »

You were speaking of impartiality and how you don't accept the reports of an organisation because you think they are partial. Yet I'm sure you don't apply these same rules and criteria to other news reports: do you dismiss the Irish Independents reporting of Irish issues because they are an Irish-based paper? Surely, we can only get impartial news from an outside source, unaffected by interests or whose vision isn't clouded because of their proximity to events.(let me know if I need to simplify and explain it more)

Yeah...it's redundant for you to say others should supply only news websites for links when you, yourself, have posted a fashion website as a source. I'm sure it was posted for genuine reasons and not because it was the best/only web page that countered the claims that were posted on Lifenews "an independent news agency". (that last part is from Lifenews "about us" section...they claim to be those things, not me)
But continue back-pedalling...I find it amusing.

Would you go onto combat 18 or storm front websites for impartial news stories about black people or immigration?

Two Sheds

I came across this story on the web but I'm very surprised to find it here under Religion and Spirituality, when, afaik, no report has even mentioned spirituality or religion, and certainly not in the video. Is the alleged sale of baby parts a religious issue?

According to reports, there are up to a dozen more videos about to be released, which will portray PP in a very unsavoury light.

Delirium

Statement from Planned Parenthood regarding the accusations of illegal body tissue selling.

Hello. I'm Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Planned Parenthood provides a full range of health care services to millions of women, men, and young people every year, including cancer screenings, birth control, STD testing and treatment, and abortion. And we provide much more than health services – we support millions of people as they build their futures and pursue their goals.

Recently, an organization that opposes safe and legal abortion used secretly recorded, heavily edited videos to make outrageous claims about programs that help women donate fetal tissue for medical research.

I want to be really clear: The allegation that Planned Parenthood profits in any way from tissue donation is not true. Our donation programs – like any other high-quality health care providers – follow all laws and ethical guidelines. Over our 100-year history, we have continually engaged leading medical experts to shape our practices, policies, and high standards – and always will.

Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion. This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member's tone and statements.

As always, if there is any aspect of our work that can be strengthened, we want to know about it, and we take swift action to address it.

Planned Parenthood stands behind our work to help women and families donate tissue for medical research when they wish to. It is always their decision.

I thank those women and families who have chosen tissue donation at some point in their lives. Your commitment to lifesaving research, developing treatments for diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, is important and compassionate, and it should be respected – not attacked.

We know the real agenda of organizations behind videos like this, and they have never been concerned with protecting the health and safety of women. Their mission is to ban abortion completely and cut women off from care at Planned Parenthood and other health centers.

We will never let that happen.

Source

lazybones32

anothernight wrote: »

The Irish Independent doesn't have as its only goal to support an argument for or against the Irish nation. You will see articles on their website that portray Ireland on a good and a bad light on any given day. Lifenews declares itself a "pro-life news source", i.e., its goal is to support the pro-life cause, and therefore they will happily cherry-pick their news so that pro-choice is always shown as the bad option. Can you honestly not see the difference?

SW wrote: »

*sigh*

LifeNews.com are a pro-life website, i.e. oppose abortion.

Is Indepedent.ie an equivalent with regard to Ireland? I'm not aware of them being regarded as an anti-Irish news-site so not seeing the relevance.

I've posted links from Gawker, CNN and the Guardian. None of which are pro-choice equivalents to LifeNews.com.

Comparisons and examples to illustrate a point are lost on you guys, huh?

Not a NSA agent

lazybones32 wrote: »

If a person reaches a conclusion on an issue, why shouldn't they argue that position? Why is it that when a person is pro-life, they're biased but if they're pro-abortion, they're "open-minded" or somehow more partial?
Your thoughts that pro-life people just seek stats, pages, reports to confirm their own viewpoint is part of your own bias. I didn't "work backwards" in concluding that abortion is evil.

It is a pro-life website, it is only going to report on matters that make it look good like every other news source would. I would take anything planned parenthood with a pinch of salt as well unlike people here who think that abortion is bad so therefor anything negative said about planned parenthood must be correct.

I'll wait for someone who doesnt have a horse in the race before making my mind up, it prevents looking like an idiot if it turns out your bandwagon is wrong but brushes it under the carpet never to be spoken of again. Im think selling human tissue is illegal in the US so Im sure an investigation will happen soon.

Two Sheds

According to the Irish Times website the Irish Family Planning Association has now been dragged into the issue and asked to distance itself from PP. The IFPA is part of an umbrella group - International Planned Parenthood Federation.

There are now multiple investigations into the allegations against Planned Parenthood.

anothernight

hinault wrote: »

Most media, rightly or wrongly, adopt a given editorial line on certain issues.

Did you watch the entire 2+ hours video?
If you did, what are your thoughts about the content of same?

Most, if not all, media are biased in some way, yes. But you're pretending that the Irish Independent's focus on Irish media is on the same level as LifeNews's focus on the pro-life issue. It's not. The Irish Independent will publish good and bad information about Ireland, as well as the world as a whole. It is not pushing an 'Irish' agenda.(whatever that might mean...:rolleyes:) Conversely, LifeNews offers information exclusively from a pro-life perspective (they say this themselves). You can't possibly think they are impartial on the issue.

I have no intention to watch the videos or commenting on Planned Parenthood or the allegations at all. I was just commenting on the issue of impartiality because you and a few others appear to struggle with the concept.

anothernight

lazybones32 wrote: »

Comparisons and examples to illustrate a point are lost on you guys, huh?

An analogy is not an analogy if it has no similarities with the actual issue being discussed.
Thank "god" for critical thinking.

lazybones32

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

It is a pro-life website, it is only going to report on matters that make it look good like every other news source would. I would take anything planned parenthood with a pinch of salt as well unlike people here who think that abortion is bad so therefor anything negative said about planned parenthood must be correct.

I'll wait for someone who doesnt have a horse in the race before making my mind up, it prevents looking like an idiot if it turns out your bandwagon is wrong but brushes it under the carpet never to be spoken of again. Im think selling human tissue is illegal in the US so Im sure an investigation will happen soon.

Report on matters that'll make it look good? No, you miss the point of the whole campaign. The point isn't to make Lifenews look good, it's to end abortion. Lifenews didn't endorse the revelations nor say they are true or false: they simply reported what info they had because the topic is within the scope of their interest. Environmental, financial, political watchdogs exist and we don't discredit their findings simply because they are opposed to something - they are discredited after investigation. If Mick Wallace's sources are correct, why do you think they chose to come to him and not follow the proper channels for reporting these activities? Why choose someone in opposition? The opposition are more likely to bring to light, while supporters are more likely to bury harmful information. Likewise, it's the opponents of Monsanto who reveal the activities of the giant and not the people who are on the payroll or benefit from compliance, etc.

Everyone has a horse in the race. Why wait for their information, analysis and expertise before making your mind up? The facts are already there. There is a big difference for fighting a cause because it is correct and fighting on a lie.

The selling of 'tissue' is illegal and investigations are underway. The company that receives the 'tissue'/organs from PP, shut down their website when the issue arose (down for maintenance). I can't remember their full name but it starts with Stem.
It definitely seems like the procedures for terminating a child are altered when the 'offer' of donating the organs is made/agreed to. That on its own warrants investigation.

Not a NSA agent

lazybones32 wrote: »

Report on matters that'll make it look good? No, you miss the point of the whole campaign. The point isn't to make Lifenews look good, it's to end abortion. Lifenews didn't endorse the revelations nor say they are true or false: they simply reported what info they had because the topic is within the scope of their interest. Environmental, financial, political watchdogs exist and we don't discredit their findings simply because they are opposed to something - they are discredited after investigation. If Mick Wallace's sources are correct, why do you think they chose to come to him and not follow the proper channels for reporting these activities? Why choose someone in opposition? The opposition are more likely to bring to light, while supporters are more likely to bury harmful information. Likewise, it's the opponents of Monsanto who reveal the activities of the giant and not the people who are on the payroll or benefit from compliance, etc.

Everyone has a horse in the race. Why wait for their information, analysis and expertise before making your mind up? The facts are already there. There is a big difference for fighting a cause because it is correct and fighting on a lie.

The selling of 'tissue' is illegal and investigations are underway. The company that receives the 'tissue'/organs from PP, shut down their website when the issue arose (down for maintenance). I can't remember their full name but it starts with Stem.
It definitely seems like the procedures for terminating a child are altered when the 'offer' of donating the organs is made/agreed to. That on its own warrants investigation.

Its a pro-life website and is against abortion, PP do abortions so I would expect lifenews to twist things. When looking at the website they had plenty of things mentioning the selling of parts, assuming that they are in fact guilty when a proper investigation hasnt take place yet.

A video isnt all of the facts. It would be foolish to assume that just because one has watched a video that they are all of a sudden an expert on the matter. If PP have been committing a crime then they should be charged in accordance with the law. If they are found innocent then I assume lifenews will release an apology over false allegations.

I would assume people would have the intelligence to see the difference between the company selling parts and abortion but as we see with GMOs and Monsanto that intelligence is often lacking.

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

Report on matters that'll make it look good? No, you miss the point of the whole campaign. The point isn't to make Lifenews look good, it's to end abortion.

Do you think that's even possible? Or do you just want to ban legal abortion and let women fend for themselves?

J C

anothernight wrote: »

... LifeNews offers information exclusively from a pro-life perspective (they say this themselves). You can't possibly think they are impartial on the issue.

No more 'impartial' than the pro-abortion position of the National Union of Journalists, I guess :-

Quote:-
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS
(NUJ)
Policy on Abortion
30 May 2001

1. Resolution 234, passed at its Annual Delegate Meeting at Norwich in 1981, states:

"This ADM reaffirms the Union's position on abortion as being that of a woman's right to choose.
"This ADM supports the Woman's Right to Choose Campaign.

"ADM pledges its backing for the newly-formed Woman's Right to Choose Group in Ireland. ADM instructs the NEC to support any move to liberalise existing abortion legislation wherever the union has members"

2. Resolution 79, passed at its Annual Delegate Meeting in Portrush in 1980, advocated the strongest possible campaign in favour of existing British legislation on abortion being extended to Northern Ireland.

3. Resolution 184, passed at its ADM in Sheffield in 1986, a motion proposed by the Irish Eastern Branch, which read:

"This ADM condemns the attempt by SPUC to obstruct and deny women access to information on fertility control and pregnancy counselling which cannot exclude abortion."

Delirium

None of that says that members of the NUJ will write/report from a purely pro-choice perspective.

hinault

anothernight wrote: »

But you're pretending that the Irish Independent's focus on Irish media is on the same level as LifeNews's focus on the pro-life issue. It's not. The Irish Independent will publish good and bad information about Ireland, as well as the world as a whole. It is not pushing an 'Irish' agenda.(whatever that might mean...:rolleyes:) Conversely, LifeNews offers information exclusively from a pro-life perspective (they say this themselves). You can't possibly think they are impartial on the issue.

Where did I make reference to the Irish Independent?
Where did I make reference to the LifeNews?

Can you quote the post where I referred to either?

anothernight wrote: »

I have no intention to watch the videos or commenting on Planned Parenthood or the allegations at all.

You're not the first person on this thread to comment about an issue which you have bothered to acquaint yourself with.

anothernight wrote: »

I was just commenting on the issue of impartiality because you and a few others appear to struggle with the concept.

And you appear to struggle with the truth.

You falsely accuse me of making reference to the Irish Independent and LifeNews

Delirium

lazybones32 wrote: »

The selling of 'tissue' is illegal and investigations are underway. The company that receives the 'tissue'/organs from PP, shut down their website when the issue arose (down for maintenance). I can't remember their full name but it starts with Stem.
It definitely seems like the procedures for terminating a child are altered when the 'offer' of donating the organs is made/agreed to. That on its own warrants investigation.

The website went down because of the unusually high traffic as a result of the Planned Parenthood story (says as much on their website).

StemExpress is the name of the company.

lazybones32

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

... so I would expect lifenews to twist things.

What reason have you, beyond your own suspicion, that Lifenews have deliberately mislead people or peddled misinformation? Saying someone is guilty because you expect them to be guilty isn't good enough.

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

I would assume people would have the intelligence to see the difference between the company selling parts and abortion but as we see with GMOs and Monsanto that intelligence is often lacking.

The intelligence isn't lacking, in fact, people are showing great intelligence in their ability to circumvent laws.

lazybones32

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you think that's even possible? Or do you just want to ban legal abortion and let women fend for themselves?

Of course it's possible! Human Society and all its structures were put in place by people; is maintained by people and can be changed by people. We decide.

The issue with abortion isn't its legality. Being legal doesn't make it right.
I don't understand the last half of the last line.

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

Of course it's possible! Human Society and all its structures were put in place by people; is maintained by people and can be changed by people. We decide.

The issue with abortion isn't its legality. Being legal doesn't make it right.
I don't understand the last half of the last line.

I'm just wondering what you meant by your comment about the aim of LifeNews and others being to stop abortion. Its something you can work to make illegal of course but you'll never stop women having abortion. There are some things that will always happen, people will always be violent, people will pay for sex and women will seek to end pregnancies. You can either have a world where they can do so safely or we can go back to the dark days of back street abortions and infanticide.

lazybones32

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm just wondering what you meant by your comment about the aim of LifeNews and others being to stop abortion. Its something you can work to make illegal of course but you'll never stop women having abortion. There are some things that will always happen, people will always be violent, people will pay for sex and women will seek to end pregnancies. You can either have a world where they can do so safely or we can go back to the dark days of back street abortions and infanticide.

Human trafficking will always happen; should we enact legislation that allows for that? Make it safe, legal and rare? - Clinton's policy.

anothernight

hinault wrote: »

Where did I make reference to the Irish Independent?
(...)

My apologies, I seem to have confused you with a different poster in this thread. I'm sure you realise that.

eviltwin

lazybones32 wrote: »

Human trafficking will always happen; should we enact legislation that allows for that? Make it safe, legal and rare? - Clinton's policy.

Do you put women who have abortions on a par with human traffickers?

Two Sheds

A spokesman for the Obama Administration hasn't seen the video and hasn't discussed it with Obama but nevertheless tells us that Planned Parenthood operates to the highest ethical standards and referred questions about Planned Parenthood to..... wait for it.....Planned Parenthood.