Planned Parenthood Selling Dead Babies for Parts

[Steel Vanguard]

Keep them talking long enough and these liberals will always reveal their classist elitism.

True. And if you keep them talking long enough conservatives will always reveal their reverence for ignorance as a virtue.

Civil Libertarians FTW.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Yeah, right....

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154946/non-christians-postgrads-highly-pro-choice.aspx

You keep aligning yourself with the uneducated and overly religious and I'm pretty sure you'll find yourselves on the wrong side of history.

Another incredible generalization. You don't have to believe in God to love humanity. Are you that dense? I love people. I don't have to believe in a God to do so.

Utter stupidity at its finest.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

True. And if you keep them talking long enough conservatives will always reveal their reverence for ignorance as a virtue.

Civil Libertarians FTW.

Too bad everything you write shows that you're a Liberal. One that hopes to be Libertarian but can't break the chains that keep you shackled to the Left.

 

[Rod Farva]

While they may or may not have broken the letter of the law we all know what's really going on there, and it's appalling to anyone with any kind of human decency. PP as much as admitted it by ceasing the practice of receiving compensation for human body parts.

Are you suggesting the cavalier discussions over lunch about how much PP could get for various parts, and how best to structure the payments so as to avoid the appearance of impropriety, didn't happen? We all know they did.

Human decency or just your vile, prejudicial, white privilege, religious zealotry trumping all?

You religious freaks aren't even paying attention to the REAL story:

Supreme Court Rejects North Dakota Appeal on Abortion Restrictions

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...h-dakota-appeal-abortion-restrictions-n503741

Chalk another win up for pro-choice....

**** a bunch o' dead babies that never had a chance and were tortuously dismembered while alive.....we win!

True. And if you keep them talking long enough conservatives will always reveal their reverence for ignorance as a virtue.

Civil Libertarians FTW.

WTF? Rofl.....great comeback man! You're awesome.

Too bad everything you write shows that you're a Liberal. One that hopes to be Libertarian but can't break the chains that keep you shackled to the Left.

You're just ignorant. Stop revering it.

 

[TDX27]

You're living in a twisted and warped fantasy world. Hence why it's so easy to pull the wool over your eyes, be it with this fake/manipulated video, or half the **** Trump happens to be selling. Will you ever return to sanity and normalcy? Only you know the answer to that.

Nothing in the videos was doctored. The words coming out of the mouths from planned parenthood were their own. They buy and sell body parts for profit. If not, they wouldn't have immediately changed their practices after this happened. If not, they would not be cutting up babies and selling individual parts. They would give away an entire aborted fetus. And, yes, Obama and other Dems have openly supported late term and partial birth abortions. So, I think you need to check your sanity if you approve of killing viable babies when they are late term or partially born or come out alive in a "botched" abortion.

The only thing these people did that was "illegal" was use fake ID's. Hell, how many of us have used fake ID's? Did we go to jail or were brought up on charges? The police and other news organizations use these tactics every damn day.

 

[SteelerSask2]

The problem is that the advent of the Internet killed reasonable and responsible journalism. Anyone with a small snippet of a much larger truth can claim the whole truth and this happens on both ends of the political spectrum. Though from my experience here it is that one end is far more zealous than the other. The belief that anyone holds the truth or that there are simple answers to intensely complex social problems is laughable.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

The problem is that the advent of the Internet killed reasonable and responsible journalism. Anyone with a small snippet of a much larger truth can claim the whole truth and this happens on both ends of the political spectrum. Though from my experience here it is that one end is far more zealous than the other. The belief that anyone holds the truth or that there are simple answers to intensely complex social problems is laughable.

It started way before that.

The Action News format was the first major nail in the coffin of Journalistic Integrity. That came along in the 70s. News as entertainment became the business model. "If it bleeds, it leads".

Then came the cable news and the "24 hour news cycle". Now these companies had a TON of air time to fill. That came along in the 80s. The business model became about telling the untold stories of woe, and scary sounding "documentaries" to fill up the slow news days.

Then came Fox News. Holy ******* ****. The "some people say" brand of yellow journalism. The business model became, **** objectivity altogether, lets just pander to one side. That came along in the 90s.

After all these changes, journalism was already a mess. Then came blogs and the internet. Instant news. That basically killed bunch of newspapers. The ones that survived became more and more political and sensationalist in order to keep up revenues. Celebrity "news" and gossip became staples, and hard news stories became reduced to slogans and click bait scare tactic headlines.

 

[oneforthebus]

I don't know...without cable news and the internet news was much easier to control and mold. Would we have ever found out about Dan Rather's lying without blogger? Or about that lying UVA girl? Access to more information and points of view is a good thing. Who knows what we were lied to about in the past before the dawn of the information age.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

I don't know...without cable news and the internet news was much easier to control and mold. Would we have ever found out about Dan Rather's lying without blogger? Or about that lying UVA girl? Access to more information and points of view is a good thing. Who knows what we were lied to about in the past before the dawn of the information age.

The problem becomes confirmation bias. People have become much more entrenched in their beliefs because they only read the blogs/sources they already agree with. The dialogue is dying. Today people are just shouting at each other through the glass windows of their prejudices.

It will get worse before it gets better.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Hey, hey, easy on the news readers now.....

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Clear evidence is now confirmation bias.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

The problem becomes confirmation bias. People have become much more entrenched in their beliefs because they only read the blogs/sources they already agree with.

Yes, because MSNBC and Michael Brown, as an example. Or Trayvon. Or Iran.

Replace MSNBC with CNN, CNBC, Huffington Post, Salon, Mother Jones,.....

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Planned Parenthood. Another one of their value-added services for the betterment of women.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...o-promotes-sadomasochism-as-adventure-and-fun

Planned Parenthood video to teens: sadomasochism is ‘fun’ and an ‘adventure’

Is there any perversion Planned Parenthood will not present to young, vulnerable people as “play”? Judging from the home page of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, apparently not. The “healthcare” organization features a video storehouse known as “A Naked Notion with Laci Green,” by sporting a picture of a young lady waving a condom.

Click the link to watch the videos, and you will be greeted by “Getting Kinky—BDSM 101,” an instructional video created in partnership with Planned Parenthood of Northern New England that attempts to make sadomasochism sound like a harmless, pleasant romp in the park.

Laci states in her perky, lilting voice that October was declared National Kink Month, “and when you think about it, October and kink—they’re kind of a fitting pair,” she says. “Halloween and kink are both about adventure and fun and exploring roles and dynamics that are maybe a little bit different from everyday life.”

The video flashes to a pair of handcuffs, and the query, “What is BDSM?” Laci explains that BDSM stands for bondage and discipline, domination and submission, and sadism and masochism. “It consists of intentionally designed scenarios called a scene where two people play out pleasurable acts that they’ve previously negotiated, called play,” she says.

But the dictionary makes no such distinction about previous negotiation or play when defining sadism. Merriam-Webster defines sadism as: “(1) a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the infliction of physical or mental pain on others; (2)(a) delight in cruelty; (b) excessive cruelty.”

That’s a far cry from negotiated fun, yet Planned Parenthood blatantly promotes it as pleasurable play. And its obvious target is young and otherwise vulnerable people.

“The pain at play with sadomasochism is not like breaking a bone or getting beat up,” Laci explains. “It’s about the strategic use of bodily sensations to elicit pleasure.”

She then sets out to normalize this horrific, dangerous perversion by saying that some people believe that those who participate in BDSM are emotionally scarred or were once abused. She states that this is “not true; it’s a total myth. People across the spectrum with various backgrounds participate in BDSM. The pain as exhilaration concept is not only old as dirt, it’s pretty common, even outside the bedroom.” She then compares sadomasochism to a runner’s high and the “intense euphoria” that results. “Kinda the same thing going on,” she says.

“The idea of using power and control and pain in a set scene understandably sets off alarms in some people’s heads,” she says. “They hear that BDSM involves spanking and pain and torture ... scary stuff. With no further knowledge it’s easy to conflate BDSM with abuse.”

“But BDSM and abuse are actually very different,” Laci says. She continues,

BDSM is about a consensual power exchange. Abuse is not. BDSM is negotiated and agreed upon before anything happens. Abuse is not. BDSM has rules, limits, and boundaries that are respected by all parties. Abuse does not.

If your head is reeling just imagining how these people who have consented to being bound and tortured are going to be respected by their “non-abusers” who are torturing them—and how respect and pre-negotiation are going to cause the torturer to limit his torture in wake of sexual stimulation—your head may well explode when you hear Laci’s next statement.

“BDSM relies upon and creates trust.” Yes, she really said that. “Abuse destroys trust,” she continued.

Next she sets out “the rules” that will ensure that BDSM remains equivalent to a runner’s high. Of course, in Planned Parenthood style, the first rule is to “negotiate safer sex”—that is, prevent STDs and pregnancies.

Rule 2 is setting boundaries. Using a “yes, no, maybe” chart is suggested as a tool. As we all know, those “maybe” boundaries are really helpful in all dangerous situations.

Laci continues, “Rule 3: Because saying stop, don’t, or no is sometimes part of the scene, partners practicing BDSM must agree on a safe word that’s easy to remember.”

Rule 4 is follow-up after a “scene,” “sometimes called after-care.” It’s all about sharing feelings after doing something really intense that may bring up some difficult feelings. Cuddling is suggested.

Rule 5 is consensual respect. “Safe, sane, and consensual power exchange relies on unyielding respect for each other’s boundaries.” It’s all about following the rules, she says.

And since this is a YouTube video, at its conclusion the viewer is treated to a variety of sadistic video options for his or her personal consumption.

Students on Christmas break are likely to log many hours online. If they end up on this Planned Parenthood website, the results could be beyond devastating.

This is Planned Parenthood. This is the organization that gets $1.3 million taxpayer dollars every day of the year to perpetuate its agenda.

 

[IndySteel]

That's a nice rack.

 

[Steel Vanguard]

Clear evidence is now confirmation bias.

This is exactly the kind of dishonest rhetoric I'm talking about.

You know I'm not defending Dan Rather. That's a straw man. But instead of having an honest discussion of the issue, you demagogue it because you don't like the source.

You ARE the problem.

 

[ark steel]

This is exactly the kind of dishonest rhetoric I'm talking about.

You know I'm not defending Dan Rather. That's a straw man. But instead of having an honest discussion of the issue, you demagogue it because you don't like the source.

You ARE the problem.

BOOM!! You win teh interwebs!

 

[SteelerSask2]

Another piece I've never understood is that many of the same people who are anti abortion are also anti tax, anti government sharing their wealth. Now wouldn't you just have more people at the troft suckin your total so to speak if you had all these unwanted kids in the world?

 

[Rod Farva]

The problem becomes confirmation bias. People have become much more entrenched in their beliefs because they only read the blogs/sources they already agree with. The dialogue is dying. Today people are just shouting at each other through the glass windows of their prejudices.

It will get worse before it gets better.

Speaking of dishonest rhetoric (which appears to be defined as "anything with which you disagree) you state all the above as if it's fact. In reality it's nothing more than opinion.

Another piece I've never understood is that many of the same people who are anti abortion are also anti tax, anti government sharing their wealth. Now wouldn't you just have more people at the troft suckin your total so to speak if you had all these unwanted kids in the world?

I'll make you a deal. I'll help pay for all the babies when we stop murdering them if you'll agree that I don't have to pay for any more illegal immigrants or for healthy citizens who won't work.

 

[SteelerSask2]

Speaking of dishonest rhetoric (which appears to be defined as "anything with which you disagree) you state all the above as if it's fact. In reality it's nothing more than opinion.



I'll make you a deal. I'll help pay for all the babies when we stop murdering them if you'll agree that I don't have to pay for any more illegal immigrants or for healthy citizens who won't work.

But the basic premise is that statistically those unwanted babies will become those people who don't want to work. So what I hear in your statement is that I expect people to live to my sense of morality, but I just don't think there should be a societal price tag.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

But the basic premise is that statistically those unwanted babies will become those people who don't want to work. So what I hear in your statement is that I expect people to live to my sense of morality, but I just don't think there should be a societal price tag.

That's some dumb **** right there brother.

Statistically, these babies will represent a microcosm of society. Some healthy, some mentally retarded; some ambitious, some not so much; some intelligent, some unintelligent; some tall, some short; some wildly successful, some not.

You're suggesting that all of these babies will become welfare babies. Then, based on that amazingly wild misinterpretation of basic science, extrapolating an argument that the man's not even making.

 

[DBS1970]

Another piece I've never understood is that many of the same people who are anti abortion are also anti tax, anti government sharing their wealth. Now wouldn't you just have more people at the troft suckin your total so to speak if you had all these unwanted kids in the world?

You would be amazed how quickly the bastardy problem would solve its self if we just quit paying trash of all ethnic backgrounds to pop out kids for a bigger cut of the assorted welfare programs.

 

[Superman]

what i don't get is the people who are Pro Abortion are also the same ones who rail whole-heartedly against the death penalty.

 

[Spike]

None of that matters now


Britain gives scientist go-ahead to genetically modify human embryos

Scientists in Britain have been give the go-ahead to edit the genes of human embryos for research, using a technique that some say could eventually be used to create "designer babies".

Less than a year after Chinese scientists caused an international furor by saying they had genetically modified human embryos, Kathy Niakan, a stem cell scientist from London's Francis Crick Institute, was granted a license to carry out similar experiments.

"The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has approved a research application from the Francis Crick Institute to use new 'gene editing' techniques on human embryos," Niakan's lab said on Monday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/health-genes-editing-idUSL8N15G1SU

 

[Steelin]

what i don't get is the people who are Pro Abortion are also the same ones who rail whole-heartedly against the death penalty.

One of the great mysteries of all time for me is how a liberal can...

1. Feel sorry for criminals facing the death penalty
2. Think that innocent unborn babies are a choice.

To me it's pretty cut and dried that the murderer made his bed and should now face the consequences. An unborn child has not harmed anyone.

 

[ark steel]

Another piece I've never understood is that many of the same people who are anti abortion are also anti tax, anti government sharing their wealth. Now wouldn't you just have more people at the troft suckin your total so to speak if you had all these unwanted kids in the world?

Those people who are anti-government sharing their wealth are, seldom, anti charity and sharing their own wealth as they see fit......