You’ve gotta shake this stuff off and come back to reality. It is not your right, nor your place to impose your definitions on others, or to impose your morality on others, particularly so when it impacts the most intimate aspects of their lives. Further, to do so from a position of being misinformed about the realties of the issue is especially egregious. What in god’s name gives you the right to cherry pick information from within a bubble and use it to impose your will on others? Because you think you make a good argument? Because you think that your moral analysis is the Right one? Why do you get to be the interpreter and the judge of these things?
Stop it. The issues with your data have already been described by another poster here. Aside from those inherent in it, it sits alone in a sea of contradicting information. To give it the credence that you do is not science, and it is not philosophically responsible. You have a duty to a methodological approach to truth finding and you’re in dereliction of it because your heart strings have been so thoroughly pulled by a well known political op.
Back to the subject…it seems like Trump is afraid to debate Harris. He had a complete meltdown and humiliated himself in the eyes of all but his devout followers when he spazzed at the NABJ event the other day.
The reason he has given for backing out of debating Harris is that “everyone already knows him and her and so blah blah blah what’s to debate”.
But everyone knew Biden beforehand and he was willing to have a debate with him.
So what’s the real reason?
Mr. R… The interpreter and judge of all that is right or wrong in the world.
I guess I’ll defer to you about everything. Forget everything I showed you. It was all crap.
So Ichthus aren’t you doing what they call virtue signaling? Oh, that’s right. We’re talking politics.
Sure. Why not. I am perfect in every way, and everyone else is not.
The ordinary narcissistic way is to conflate the ego with the ego-ideal. It’s a defense mechanism against ego-dystonic info. The question then becomes: what is the reality threshold? Assuming there is one.
person=person
Who is the person? The one who passes by the opportunity to protect defenseless babies, or the one who virtue signals until the defenseless baby is protected? Or is it the one who accuses others of hating defenseless babies when they themselves are exposed for hating defenseless babies? Who would you vote to become president?
I mean granted they all suck. But just answer the question.
There have been more infant/child sacrifices to supernatural beings than infant/child deaths caused by every abortion clinic in history, combined.
We can almost be sure that god was a registered Democrat when he ordered Abraham to kill his childrens. But not positive… becuz at the last second he was like ‘no don’t do it i was just kidding ahahahaha!’ and instead he had a ram slaughtered. So he may very well be a conservative… as they’re known for shooting dogs.
Babies, Dead and Alive: “CHINA x infinity. Oh. In collusion with the U.S.”
repeat x infinity
Ichthus, your source is an organization that lies to push its political agenda – whatever else their videos show, they show that.
Take this video:
First, the title: “Planned Parenthood Headquarters Seeks $1,500 “Financial Incentive” Per Aborted Fetal Liver”
Planned Parenthood didn’t seek a financial incentive, they were offered one by the organization making this video. Nor did Planned Parenthood accept the financial incentive they were offered, the doctor said she would talk to the people who would approve that, i.e. not her; she’s there looking for “someone to take it”. And taking payment from people who do that is not illegal: like the law I cited above, the law they cite on this point expressly permits “reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”
Next, let’s do the math on the numbers the doctor provides, just to sanity check.
She describes three locations, one which does 50 abortions per day during the week and 75-100 on Saturday (call it an average of 87.5), and at 2 other locations they do 25/day. Assuming that means the clinics are closed on Monday or Sunday, and that they do this 52 weeks a year, that’s 27950 abortions per year, 14950 at the Manhattan location and 13000 at the other two together.
She says that the Manhattan location does abortions up to 24 weeks, with 10-20% of abortions past 13 weeks. The other two locations only do “first tri”, i.e. less than 13 weeks. Taking 10% of the Manhattan location, we get 1495 per year past 13 weeks, and that comes to 5.3% of the total abortions performed by all three locations. 20% would be twice that, 10.6%. So roughly 5-10% of all abortions they perform are past 13 weeks.
That fits pretty well with the CDC information I provided above, which had 92.7% of abortions less than 13 weeks. That should support our credence in both sources, because the numbers were reported for different reasons and in different contexts, and represent different samples, but they agree pretty well. If instead clinics downplayed their numbers when reporting to the CDC, or this doctor were inflating her numbers to pitch a customer, there would be a mismatch.
And we see that reinforced later when the doctor is asked if they can change their practice to produce better fetal tissues, to which she replies that no, they do what’s safest, that they won’t encourage more intact abortions, but they do them when it’s “less traumatic for the patient”.
In response to this, the video highlights “intact D&E” and claims it’s illegal. This again misrepresents the law, and ironically undermines a claim you made in a separate post, that babies are not killed to keep the organs “fresh”. In fact, the law cited in the video, 18 USC 1531, makes it a crime to kill the baby by any overt act other than delivering the baby (paragraph (b)(1)(B)).
So the video provides evidence that that Planned Parenthood performs legal abortions and provides fetal tissues from those abortions to researchers, which Planned Parenthood has never denied; that they accurately and consistently report their numbers; that they won’t change their procedures at the request of researchers to produce specific kinds of tissues; that the doctors know that researchers pay for the fetal tissues (which they are allowed to do to cover costs) but aren’t the ones who make those decisions.
None of that sounds “Mengele-level” to me, and it seems like it’s the abortion itself that you most object to.
Also keep in mind this is a selectively edited video, which shows someone lying to a doctor to get her to say things that sound bad. This is the most damning video they could make. And it’s just not damning.
1 Like
Your arguments are pathetic and easily defeated. The only reason I would waste my time on it is if I thought it would result in defenseless babies being protected. Which I don’t. Therefore I won’t.
.
Caribbean female egg-donorship is almost non-existent… when Caribbean females are admitted into hospital for a simple fibroid-removal procedure, many leave without a womb.
I wonder what they do with all those Caribbean eggs… 
I understand why you’re closed to my arguments, I’m not pretending that I believe fetuses are babies or that abortion is a particular moral wrong. But I do think that everyone who has an abortion would prefer to have avoided getting pregnant in the first place, and that therefore reducing total abortions is actually a common metric for divergent goals.
You say that your goal is to protect babies, but you focus on rhetorical purity. Spend more time thinking out what actually saves the most babies. I don’t think CPM is it. CPM focuses on the grisliest stories, but if you saved all the babies in their grisly stories, you’ve saved relatively few the babies.
What actually saves babies is programs that provide sexual education, contraception, and generally empower women to make decisions about their own reproductive health – fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer dead babies. Give out a few thousand condoms and you’re likely to prevent more abortions than you would if you prevented every abortion past 21 weeks.
And those effective programs are what makes up the vast majority of what Planned Parenthood does. CPM’s focusing on edge cases and tries to shut down Planned Parenthood for symbolic reasons, but that’s likely to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies, which is likely to increase the number of abortions. If the goal is to protect babies, shutting down Planned Parenthood is a terrible way to do it.
I suspect there’s a disconnect in how we evaluate moral systems here; do you think saving one 24 week baby from abortion is more important than preventing 500 abortions?
1 Like
.
…not so much not a female, as she is not not on roids, so should be disqualified for being on performance-enhancing drugs… though some were criticising the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for allowing the entry of a boxer who it is said previously failed to meet gender eligibility criteria in the women’s World Championships in New Delhi last year after failing to meet the gender eligibility criteria of the International Boxing Association (IBA).
…either that, or she has Differences of Sex Development (DSD) and should have been asked to take testosterone-reducing medication in order to compete internationally… like this runner had to… 
.
This young lady is also competing in the women’s Olympic boxing 2024…
…even though they also previously failed to meet gender eligibility criteria in the women’s World Championships in New Delhi last year after failing to meet the gender eligibility criteria of the International Boxing Association (IBA).
.
The IBA condemned “inconsistencies in eligibility” at the Paris Games, stating: “Both Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting post testing, did not meet the required eligibility criteria to compete within the female category of our respective events,” the body added.
.
.
¿Why is this happening this time round?
The IOC has defended its decision to allow both boxers to compete at Paris 2024, having stripped the IBA of its recognition last year over governance and finance issues, before the Olympic body opted to run the boxing competition in Paris itself.
This is like when someone you’re dating does something wrong and you seek accountability from them and they come back with “I guess I’m just the worst girlfriend ever and a horrible person and that you’re perfect”.
It’s not an argument. It’s an expression of an emotional state. I know, I literally know that you can do better than this.
You want the government to control women and their bodies. Let the woman decide. She’s the one capable of deciding who is closest to the issue. Big Brother is not the solution. Republicans are all about Freedom except when they’re not.
Is there like a running bet on how many words I waste answering people that don’t even believe the positions they’re arguing for? I want a cut.
Is it like a jog-athon or something? Like .10 a word?
What?