|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be.
|
On February 10 2017 02:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:21 LightSpectra wrote:
The document has to say "may" because it has no power to make an indictment. Those are referrals to criminal courts based off of their investigation, i.e. that means they found conclusive evidence that felonious actions were done. Okay, and what did the courts find?
I'm not sure what the courts found, but I *can* tell you that my dictionary finds that "may" doesn't mean the same thing as "definitely" or "obviously" or "guilty as charged" or "Planned Parenthood is Satanic".
|
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed.
On February 10 2017 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:22 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:21 LightSpectra wrote:
The document has to say "may" because it has no power to make an indictment. Those are referrals to criminal courts based off of their investigation, i.e. that means they found conclusive evidence that felonious actions were done. Okay, and what did the courts find? I'm not sure what the courts found, but I *can* tell you that my dictionary finds that "may" doesn't mean the same thing as "definitely" or "obviously" or "guilty as charged" or "Planned Parenthood is Satanic".
I don't believe I ever said they were Satanic, I said they were found to have illegally profited off of selling fetal body parts.
Some might think this is no big deal, but I wonder why California afterwards took steps to make it illegal to do undercover filming inside Planned Parenthood. If they did nothing wrong, why keep the curtain shut so hard?
|
United States43869 Posts
On February 10 2017 02:25 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:22 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:21 LightSpectra wrote:
The document has to say "may" because it has no power to make an indictment. Those are referrals to criminal courts based off of their investigation, i.e. that means they found conclusive evidence that felonious actions were done. Okay, and what did the courts find? All of those things you just listed.
Got a link for any of that? Ideally some of the good stuff like PP selling babies, not just "random abortion doctor breaks existing law and is convicted accordingly".
We asked for proof and you gave us an ideologically partisan circle jerk saying that it may have happened and that they recommend further investigation. And hell, one of those points was just "sales tax wasn't levied on an otherwise legitimate transaction". A stem cell transportation company allegedly fucking up their tax returns does not make your case.
|
On February 10 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2017 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 01:39 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 00:55 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 00:43 LightSpectra wrote:
KwawK, I've already admitted that I've never voted Republican, so don't say I was "duped". I agree that Republican policies are not pro-life; I am throwing my support behind a third party that actually is.
What I was saying is that the extremist pro-abortion policies of the Democratic party means that I cannot in conscience vote for them right now. Maybe I could if they reverted back to their "rare but legal" platform, but they have practically made Cecile Richards their policy chair, so that's not going to happen. If the Democratic Party are really pro-abortion, why are they pushing contraception, increased welfare for children, sex education and family planning? These are all things which have been proven to reduce abortion, which again is at historically low levels. This fantasy that the Democratic Party have teamed up with Planned Parenthood to fuel an orgy of pizza parties built on abortion is just that, a fantasy. Your sources, the fake news article and Richards saying people need to talk about why they needed Planned Parenthood, don't prove your fantasy. The Democratic Party is your only hope for reducing the number of abortions that happen. Third parties have no power and Republicans work tirelessly to increase unwanted pregnancies. Democrats have a long proven track record of drastically reducing the number of abortions in their states through sex education, access to contraception and by supporting women who make the choice to keep the fetus. And if you're reading Washington Times articles and deciding based upon those that you simply cannot vote Democrat you've been duped by the Republicans. That's how it works. No, you're just wrong. Planned Parenthood's spent the last decade phasing out actual health care in order to increase funding for abortion and advertising their abortion facilities. There's a reason why everybody hates them. They get caught selling fetal body parts, the DNC just comes out and denies it ever happened. They get caught aiding sex traffickers by giving abortions to underage prostitutes, so instead of instructing their staff on how to catch sex traffickers, they instruct their staff on how to detect undercover journalists instead. Are you trying to troll us with this crap? It's common knowledge that literally none of that is true, so either you're absurdly misinformed, or you're not taking this seriously. The power of Facebook news It's utterly ridiculous, and falling for that anti-PP scam reminds me of the people who fall for the "Vaccines cause autism" fake paper. The worst part is that once he reads Facebook news that confirms his pre-existing belief it actually ceases to matter whether it actually happened or not. Alternative facts are no joke. This country is in serious trouble.
failing to report child abuse
employees giving advice to sex trafficker about abortion causing pp to retrain
pp clinic put on probation for similar issues
undercover vid about late term abortions
Just some sources I found beyond Facebook. Some of the other videos by under cover groups were altered, but I believe these stories were true and not altered. Not saying this represents all of pp, but it is a politically active organization and deserves scrutiny. It has tried to advocate for late term abortions as well, which alienates most people.
|
On February 10 2017 02:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be.
But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along?
|
On February 10 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:25 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:22 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:21 LightSpectra wrote:
The document has to say "may" because it has no power to make an indictment. Those are referrals to criminal courts based off of their investigation, i.e. that means they found conclusive evidence that felonious actions were done. Okay, and what did the courts find? All of those things you just listed. Got a link for any of that? Ideally some of the good stuff like PP selling babies, not just "random abortion doctor breaks existing law and is convicted accordingly".
From my link before:
15) Over the course of its investigation, the Panel has uncovered documents and received
testimony from confidential informants indicating that several entities, including four Planned
Parenthood clinics and Novogenix, may have violated federal law, specifically Title 42 U.S.C. §
289g-2, which forbids the transfer of fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Referred to the U.S.
Department of Justice.
Which is it, is it fake news like you said before, or is it a good thing?
|
United States43869 Posts
On February 10 2017 02:29 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:25 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:22 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:21 LightSpectra wrote:
The document has to say "may" because it has no power to make an indictment. Those are referrals to criminal courts based off of their investigation, i.e. that means they found conclusive evidence that felonious actions were done. Okay, and what did the courts find? All of those things you just listed. Got a link for any of that? Ideally some of the good stuff like PP selling babies, not just "random abortion doctor breaks existing law and is convicted accordingly". From my link before: 15) Over the course of its investigation, the Panel has uncovered documents and received testimony from confidential informants indicating that several entities, including four Planned Parenthood clinics and Novogenix, may have violated federal law, specifically Title 42 U.S.C. § 289g-2, which forbids the transfer of fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Referred to the U.S. Department of Justice. Which is it, is it fake news like you said before, or is it a good thing?
Okay, you're not following.
What did the Department of Justice do with the referral?
|
On February 10 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed.
By definition, those parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are not pro-choice. Do you know what choice means?
|
On February 10 2017 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be. But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along?
Nobody has yet answered me whether they think publicly supporting Planned Parenthood, making public appearances with them, threatening pro-life groups, etc. has won them more votes than they lost.
This isn't even a factual question, it's just your perception. Do you think those things were politically good or bad?
|
On February 10 2017 02:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed. By definition, those parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are not pro-choice. Do you know what choice means?
Sure they're not pro-choice, but they're taking advantage of the legal foundation established by pro-choice people in order to deny people a choice and force abortion upon them. Again, pro-choice people don't really care about these situations and they've done nothing to stop them.
|
On February 10 2017 02:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:29 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:25 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:22 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:21 LightSpectra wrote:
The document has to say "may" because it has no power to make an indictment. Those are referrals to criminal courts based off of their investigation, i.e. that means they found conclusive evidence that felonious actions were done. Okay, and what did the courts find? All of those things you just listed. Got a link for any of that? Ideally some of the good stuff like PP selling babies, not just "random abortion doctor breaks existing law and is convicted accordingly". From my link before: 15) Over the course of its investigation, the Panel has uncovered documents and received testimony from confidential informants indicating that several entities, including four Planned Parenthood clinics and Novogenix, may have violated federal law, specifically Title 42 U.S.C. § 289g-2, which forbids the transfer of fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Referred to the U.S. Department of Justice. Which is it, is it fake news like you said before, or is it a good thing? Okay, you're not following. What did the Department of Justice do with the referral?
Nothing at all. Obama and Lynch support PP and take political donations from them, so why would they do anything?
|
On February 10 2017 02:28 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2017 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 01:39 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 00:55 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 00:43 LightSpectra wrote:
KwawK, I've already admitted that I've never voted Republican, so don't say I was "duped". I agree that Republican policies are not pro-life; I am throwing my support behind a third party that actually is.
What I was saying is that the extremist pro-abortion policies of the Democratic party means that I cannot in conscience vote for them right now. Maybe I could if they reverted back to their "rare but legal" platform, but they have practically made Cecile Richards their policy chair, so that's not going to happen. If the Democratic Party are really pro-abortion, why are they pushing contraception, increased welfare for children, sex education and family planning? These are all things which have been proven to reduce abortion, which again is at historically low levels. This fantasy that the Democratic Party have teamed up with Planned Parenthood to fuel an orgy of pizza parties built on abortion is just that, a fantasy. Your sources, the fake news article and Richards saying people need to talk about why they needed Planned Parenthood, don't prove your fantasy. The Democratic Party is your only hope for reducing the number of abortions that happen. Third parties have no power and Republicans work tirelessly to increase unwanted pregnancies. Democrats have a long proven track record of drastically reducing the number of abortions in their states through sex education, access to contraception and by supporting women who make the choice to keep the fetus. And if you're reading Washington Times articles and deciding based upon those that you simply cannot vote Democrat you've been duped by the Republicans. That's how it works. No, you're just wrong. Planned Parenthood's spent the last decade phasing out actual health care in order to increase funding for abortion and advertising their abortion facilities. There's a reason why everybody hates them. They get caught selling fetal body parts, the DNC just comes out and denies it ever happened. They get caught aiding sex traffickers by giving abortions to underage prostitutes, so instead of instructing their staff on how to catch sex traffickers, they instruct their staff on how to detect undercover journalists instead. Are you trying to troll us with this crap? It's common knowledge that literally none of that is true, so either you're absurdly misinformed, or you're not taking this seriously. The power of Facebook news It's utterly ridiculous, and falling for that anti-PP scam reminds me of the people who fall for the "Vaccines cause autism" fake paper. The worst part is that once he reads Facebook news that confirms his pre-existing belief it actually ceases to matter whether it actually happened or not. Alternative facts are no joke. This country is in serious trouble. failing to report child abuseemployees giving advice to sex trafficker about abortion causing pp to retrainpp clinic put on probation for similar issuesundercover vid about late term abortionsJust some sources I found beyond Facebook. Some of the other videos by under cover groups were altered, but I believe these stories were true and not altered. Not saying this represents all of pp, but it is a politically active organization and deserves scrutiny. It has tried to advocate for late term abortions as well, which alienates most people.
The failure to report child abuse would be a violation of HIPPA and would need review from their legal department. And all victims of sexual abuse have a right to privacy if it is requested. That has got to be one of the most bullshit pieces of bait I have seen from pro-life groups in a while.
|
United States43869 Posts
On February 10 2017 02:28 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2017 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 01:39 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 00:55 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 00:43 LightSpectra wrote:
KwawK, I've already admitted that I've never voted Republican, so don't say I was "duped". I agree that Republican policies are not pro-life; I am throwing my support behind a third party that actually is.
What I was saying is that the extremist pro-abortion policies of the Democratic party means that I cannot in conscience vote for them right now. Maybe I could if they reverted back to their "rare but legal" platform, but they have practically made Cecile Richards their policy chair, so that's not going to happen. If the Democratic Party are really pro-abortion, why are they pushing contraception, increased welfare for children, sex education and family planning? These are all things which have been proven to reduce abortion, which again is at historically low levels. This fantasy that the Democratic Party have teamed up with Planned Parenthood to fuel an orgy of pizza parties built on abortion is just that, a fantasy. Your sources, the fake news article and Richards saying people need to talk about why they needed Planned Parenthood, don't prove your fantasy. The Democratic Party is your only hope for reducing the number of abortions that happen. Third parties have no power and Republicans work tirelessly to increase unwanted pregnancies. Democrats have a long proven track record of drastically reducing the number of abortions in their states through sex education, access to contraception and by supporting women who make the choice to keep the fetus. And if you're reading Washington Times articles and deciding based upon those that you simply cannot vote Democrat you've been duped by the Republicans. That's how it works. No, you're just wrong. Planned Parenthood's spent the last decade phasing out actual health care in order to increase funding for abortion and advertising their abortion facilities. There's a reason why everybody hates them. They get caught selling fetal body parts, the DNC just comes out and denies it ever happened. They get caught aiding sex traffickers by giving abortions to underage prostitutes, so instead of instructing their staff on how to catch sex traffickers, they instruct their staff on how to detect undercover journalists instead. Are you trying to troll us with this crap? It's common knowledge that literally none of that is true, so either you're absurdly misinformed, or you're not taking this seriously. The power of Facebook news It's utterly ridiculous, and falling for that anti-PP scam reminds me of the people who fall for the "Vaccines cause autism" fake paper. The worst part is that once he reads Facebook news that confirms his pre-existing belief it actually ceases to matter whether it actually happened or not. Alternative facts are no joke. This country is in serious trouble. failing to report child abuseemployees giving advice to sex trafficker about abortion causing pp to retrainpp clinic put on probation for similar issuesundercover vid about late term abortionsJust some sources I found beyond Facebook. Some of the other videos by under cover groups were altered, but I believe these stories were true and not altered. Not saying this represents all of pp, but it is a politically active organization and deserves scrutiny. It has tried to advocate for late term abortions as well, which alienates most people.
Bio, that NY Times link says that in response to the misleading videos they announced that they were training all their staff to spot sex traffickers. The misleading video in question being the one where O'Keefe pretended to be a sex trafficker and PP called the police on him.
It's PR. Someone alleged that there was a problem. Their PR guy said Look, there's no way you can say "we don't have a problem with sex traffickers" without some idiot not understanding that what you mean is that it literally isn't a problem that exists. Just say you take the concerns of the public very seriously and will be taking steps to train staff to react correctly to protect vulnerable individuals.
It's an article talking about what they did in response to the fake videos. It is not an admission of guilt regarding the content of those videos.
|
On February 10 2017 02:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:28 biology]major wrote:On February 10 2017 02:11 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2017 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 01:39 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 00:55 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 00:43 LightSpectra wrote:
KwawK, I've already admitted that I've never voted Republican, so don't say I was "duped". I agree that Republican policies are not pro-life; I am throwing my support behind a third party that actually is.
What I was saying is that the extremist pro-abortion policies of the Democratic party means that I cannot in conscience vote for them right now. Maybe I could if they reverted back to their "rare but legal" platform, but they have practically made Cecile Richards their policy chair, so that's not going to happen. If the Democratic Party are really pro-abortion, why are they pushing contraception, increased welfare for children, sex education and family planning? These are all things which have been proven to reduce abortion, which again is at historically low levels. This fantasy that the Democratic Party have teamed up with Planned Parenthood to fuel an orgy of pizza parties built on abortion is just that, a fantasy. Your sources, the fake news article and Richards saying people need to talk about why they needed Planned Parenthood, don't prove your fantasy. The Democratic Party is your only hope for reducing the number of abortions that happen. Third parties have no power and Republicans work tirelessly to increase unwanted pregnancies. Democrats have a long proven track record of drastically reducing the number of abortions in their states through sex education, access to contraception and by supporting women who make the choice to keep the fetus. And if you're reading Washington Times articles and deciding based upon those that you simply cannot vote Democrat you've been duped by the Republicans. That's how it works. No, you're just wrong. Planned Parenthood's spent the last decade phasing out actual health care in order to increase funding for abortion and advertising their abortion facilities. There's a reason why everybody hates them. They get caught selling fetal body parts, the DNC just comes out and denies it ever happened. They get caught aiding sex traffickers by giving abortions to underage prostitutes, so instead of instructing their staff on how to catch sex traffickers, they instruct their staff on how to detect undercover journalists instead. Are you trying to troll us with this crap? It's common knowledge that literally none of that is true, so either you're absurdly misinformed, or you're not taking this seriously. The power of Facebook news It's utterly ridiculous, and falling for that anti-PP scam reminds me of the people who fall for the "Vaccines cause autism" fake paper. The worst part is that once he reads Facebook news that confirms his pre-existing belief it actually ceases to matter whether it actually happened or not. Alternative facts are no joke. This country is in serious trouble. failing to report child abuseemployees giving advice to sex trafficker about abortion causing pp to retrainpp clinic put on probation for similar issuesundercover vid about late term abortionsJust some sources I found beyond Facebook. Some of the other videos by under cover groups were altered, but I believe these stories were true and not altered. Not saying this represents all of pp, but it is a politically active organization and deserves scrutiny. It has tried to advocate for late term abortions as well, which alienates most people. The failure to report child abuse would be a violation of HIPPA and would need review from their legal department. And all victims of sexual abuse have a right to privacy if it is requested. That has got to be one of the most bullshit pieces of bait I have seen from pro-life groups in a while.
Just answer me this. Do you at least see that there is a *conflict of interest* in PP not reporting victims of child abuse, because they have a monetary incentive to not do so?
I'm not asking if you think PP are pedophiles/pro-pedophile/whatever, I am merely asking if you see a conflict of interest. If not, why?
|
On February 10 2017 02:33 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:30 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:29 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:25 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:22 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:21 LightSpectra wrote:
The document has to say "may" because it has no power to make an indictment. Those are referrals to criminal courts based off of their investigation, i.e. that means they found conclusive evidence that felonious actions were done. Okay, and what did the courts find? All of those things you just listed. Got a link for any of that? Ideally some of the good stuff like PP selling babies, not just "random abortion doctor breaks existing law and is convicted accordingly". From my link before: 15) Over the course of its investigation, the Panel has uncovered documents and received testimony from confidential informants indicating that several entities, including four Planned Parenthood clinics and Novogenix, may have violated federal law, specifically Title 42 U.S.C. § 289g-2, which forbids the transfer of fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Referred to the U.S. Department of Justice. Which is it, is it fake news like you said before, or is it a good thing? Okay, you're not following. What did the Department of Justice do with the referral? Nothing at all. Obama and Lynch support PP and take political donations from them, so why would they do anything?
Well then the Republicans take pro-life donations so we can't trust them. And since we can't trust anyone, abortion rights should stay as they are.
|
On February 10 2017 02:31 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be. But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along? Nobody has yet answered me whether they think publicly supporting Planned Parenthood, making public appearances with them, threatening pro-life groups, etc. has won them more votes than they lost. This isn't even a factual question, it's just your perception. Do you think those things were politically good or bad?
I think that supporting organizations that support medicine, healthcare, and responsible parenting- which is what Planned Parenthood does- should certainly be seen in a positive light. The problem, of course, is that you occasionally get people who lie and cheat and scam to make such organizations look bad, which will make some people dislike PP... although those people probably didn't support them to begin with anyway. I can't find any statistics as to whether or not supporting PP has literally won or lost people elections, but I think that it's good policy and good morally to support women and healthy lifestyles, and certainly the political figures who hate PP are people who I already don't respect or trust for many other reasons.
|
United States43869 Posts
On February 10 2017 02:33 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:30 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:29 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:25 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:22 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:21 LightSpectra wrote:
The document has to say "may" because it has no power to make an indictment. Those are referrals to criminal courts based off of their investigation, i.e. that means they found conclusive evidence that felonious actions were done. Okay, and what did the courts find? All of those things you just listed. Got a link for any of that? Ideally some of the good stuff like PP selling babies, not just "random abortion doctor breaks existing law and is convicted accordingly". From my link before: 15) Over the course of its investigation, the Panel has uncovered documents and received testimony from confidential informants indicating that several entities, including four Planned Parenthood clinics and Novogenix, may have violated federal law, specifically Title 42 U.S.C. § 289g-2, which forbids the transfer of fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Referred to the U.S. Department of Justice. Which is it, is it fake news like you said before, or is it a good thing? Okay, you're not following. What did the Department of Justice do with the referral? Nothing at all. Obama and Lynch support PP and take political donations from them, so why would they do anything?
So in your mind the Republican partisan hit group that had to make a show of investigating it found that there may have been an issue and then referred it to the DoJ. The DoJ then investigated it and found nothing actionable. And this proves that it definitely happened.
Am I missing any step here?
|
On February 10 2017 02:35 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:33 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:30 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:29 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:25 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:22 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:21 LightSpectra wrote:
The document has to say "may" because it has no power to make an indictment. Those are referrals to criminal courts based off of their investigation, i.e. that means they found conclusive evidence that felonious actions were done. Okay, and what did the courts find? All of those things you just listed. Got a link for any of that? Ideally some of the good stuff like PP selling babies, not just "random abortion doctor breaks existing law and is convicted accordingly". From my link before: 15) Over the course of its investigation, the Panel has uncovered documents and received testimony from confidential informants indicating that several entities, including four Planned Parenthood clinics and Novogenix, may have violated federal law, specifically Title 42 U.S.C. § 289g-2, which forbids the transfer of fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Referred to the U.S. Department of Justice. Which is it, is it fake news like you said before, or is it a good thing? Okay, you're not following. What did the Department of Justice do with the referral? Nothing at all. Obama and Lynch support PP and take political donations from them, so why would they do anything? Well then the Republicans take pro-life donations so we can't trust them. And since we can't trust anyone, abortion rights should stay as they are.
If you find any evidence of the GOP not prosecuting pro-life groups that are clearly criminally liable, then you'd have a good point there.
Disclaimer: I'm not Republican so I don't care, I'm not going to defend them either way.
|
On February 10 2017 02:29 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:27 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:25 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:22 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:21 LightSpectra wrote:
The document has to say "may" because it has no power to make an indictment. Those are referrals to criminal courts based off of their investigation, i.e. that means they found conclusive evidence that felonious actions were done. Okay, and what did the courts find? All of those things you just listed. Got a link for any of that? Ideally some of the good stuff like PP selling babies, not just "random abortion doctor breaks existing law and is convicted accordingly". From my link before: 15) Over the course of its investigation, the Panel has uncovered documents and received testimony from confidential informants indicating that several entities, including four Planned Parenthood clinics and Novogenix, may have violated federal law, specifically Title 42 U.S.C. § 289g-2, which forbids the transfer of fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Referred to the U.S. Department of Justice. Which is it, is it fake news like you said before, or is it a good thing?
Not a good thing. But what actually happened? Clearly PP actually violating fetus trafficking laws would be quite bad. There's a couple of nuances here:
1) There are very many PP clinics. Unless this was systematic, it seems more likely there was one person, or a group of people, in one clinic who abused their position. Are we anti-morgue now too because some people in some morgues make money of necrophiles wanting to get it on. It's clearly a horrible practice, but can we blame companies that run chains of mortuaries for that? Unless it's systematic in their morgues I don't think so.
2) The former point was assuming there was even actual evidence of wrongdoing. The document linked was a preliminary investigation, and not a court case. Presumably there was a court case to follow up. Was there a conviction?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
