Jim, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law. There is a period where the pregnancy is technically terminated but the procedure is not complete. If an agency was to alter the procedure post termination to best preserve the tissue that wouldn't be illegal.

You make it sound like dinner at the Vatican.
Food for thought,no pun intended but history proves my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Regardless of what side you are on the argument between you two sounds fairly Ghoulish to me. To be honest it is kind of disgusting. Harvesting Organs from terminated pregnancies. WTF
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see. So according to you, it's legal to turn the baby upside down while it's still alive, but illegal to do it after it has been killed. Can you please cite the portion of the law which states that? I would be more than shocked if that were the case, but I am persuadable. Please post that portion of the text.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I didn't say anything like that.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/04...ice-structure/

Spence, there is no smoking gun here, but it's enough to look into it, it's enough for me to say I don't want my tax dollars going there, and it's enough (thank God) that many on your side of the abortion issue, are disturbed by this.

There isn't any tax money funding abortions, that's Federal law.

What that FOX article misses though is that it's not black or white if processes are changed in regards to fetal tissue. The intent of the law is to ensure the well being of the patient is placed first. If there are multiple methods to perform the abortion and one may be better than the other to collect viable tissue this likely wouldn't be considered a process change under the law unless it created additional pain or stress for the patient.

What the unedited tape also shows is that the PP rep making the statement says that she can't even approve a process change like that and would have to speak with the surgeon to see if it was allowed.

"it's not black or white if processes are changed in regards to fetal tissue"

So let's investigate, and find out if laws were broken. In the meantime, if you want to donate your money to pay for an organization that kills babies for money, that's your right, but I'd prefer to be left out of that scenario.

The other thing that both the edited and unedited tape show, are folks discussing these things with a callousness that would be shocking, except it's obviously a pre-requisite to work at such a place. That callousness is making a lot of people take notice, and Hilary's support may not play well in the general.

It's a non-profit organization Jim. They don't kill babies for money.

The reality is you'll see a similar attitude with most fields that deal in gruesome subjects. I doubt it's really any different than hacking cadavers up for medical purposes...and yes that would include implanting a dead person's body parts into another for medical treatments...I'd wager you'd have a pretty cold perspective as well.

Sure, it's hard to listen to but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Remember, this entire discussion was spawned by a anti-abortion group.

how low can U go......

MC'ing a limbo contest?

This may be news to you Spence, but even non-profits can occasionally be involved in wrongdoing.

"Sure, it's hard to listen to but that doesn't mean it's illegal"

Let's find out if it was illegal. And just because it's legal, doesn't mean taxpayers need to fund it.

Meaning what, exactly? I sit inconceivablke that an anti-abortion group could uncover wrong-doing? It's not possible?

Let's examine that, shall we?

Dr. Mary Gatter, Council President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Directors, in Video #2, she says
“Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine,” Gatter said. “If it’s still low, then we can bump it up....I want a Lamborghini.”

Now, if all PP wants to do is cover expenses, then why is any deal contingent on making sure that the rate is competitive to what others are getting? If all PP cares about is covering their own expenses, then it shouldn't give a rat's azz about making sure no one else has a better deal.

As to her statement about the car, who knows what she meant. But if her goal is indeed to kill enough babies to get a lamborghini, then this c*nt can do it without reaching into my wallet, OK?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-anymore.html#

seems like it reading you constant bending over backwards to defend evil and wrongdoing...:eek5:

pretty solid job of reporting...and courageous

great article http://www.nationalreview.com/node/422305/print

Selective editing.

In the full video she says multiple times they don't look to make a profit, she laughs off the Lamborghini remark as mocking the idea they're out for profit...and the best is the "undercover" actors were pushing her to accept more money which she was resisting.

In other words, it's nearly 180 degrees from your perception.

So is the NFL.......squeaky clean there. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually I thought they dropped their status this spring...mostly so they could hide Goodell's salary. Too bad he's going to be on unemployment soon.

it's OK Jim, always need to remember that Spence's perception is 180 degrees from reality......funny how the left is vigilant about political correctness, unacceptable speech, compassion and appropriate tone and tenor regarding certain issues until the ghoulishness or bad behaviour of someone involved in one of their pet projects is exposed....rather than punish the ghoul or the criminal or the nare-do-well, they attack the appalled....which is 180 degrees from how they treat someone that they disagree with politically who commits a PC sin....we have many examples of this now....odd behaviour

Just read that Jeb's grandfather, Sen. Prescott Bush was PP's first treasurer and his name was on fundraising letters.

Oh he certainly was heavily involved with PP.

It does make you wonder if all this eugenics hype is a lot of nothing and the real issue is about women's health and control over their own bodies. Remember, back then abortions were done in back alleys and even information about contraception was illegal.

"It does make you wonder if all this eugenics hype is a lot of nothing "

Tell that to the black ministers who are trying to remover her likeness from the Smithsonian. Spence, is there any evidence that she didn't support eugenics? Just because that would help your personal agenda, that doesn't make it evidence.

"the real issue is about women's health and control over their own bodies"

Oh, it's not about killing babies, but "women's health"? Spence, why are so many women opposed to abortion? These women, like Carly Fiorina, are opposed to their own health? Do you honestly believe that?

More evidence that it's not about "womens health" - the bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood, would divert every single cent that currently goes to Planned Parenthood, to other "women's health" organizations that don't do the things that Planned Parenthood does. If the goal was to diminish women's health, why doesn't the bill propose to cut funding to women's health by a single cent? And why was the bill proposed by a female US Senator?

Do you ever get tired of ignoring the facts and trying to dishonestly demonize the other side? I guess it's easier than responding to what we are actually saying.

Fortunately we have plenty of good homes for those unwanted babies. The foster care in Auburn is a perfect example.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't know what you are referring to, I guess you are being sarcastic.

But at least you aren't referring to any horsebleep about "women's health". Now you are saying this is for the good of the baby?

We also have people who wait for years to adopt babies. Years. What that means, is that there are more people who want babies, than there are babies that are available.

Sea Dangles, would you rather be slaughtered, or put in a foster home?

If they need to raise my taxes to provide better care for neglected kids, I have zero issue with that. Tax away!

If I am going to be tortured in a foster home please kill me first. You know less than you think Jim.and you prove it consistently
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well Sea Dangles, (1) given the years-long waiting lists for people desperate to adopt a baby, I think it's safe to say that not many babies end up unwanted and in foster care as you depicted...that's mostly older kids who find themselves in a lousy deal. And (2) given that kids in foster homes are not committing suicide in huge numbers, I think I can make a pretty compelling case that those people feel their lives are, in fact, worth living. So, let's be honest and not suggest that abortion is doing these babies a favor.

Read the news Jim. I am well aware of the adoption process. My good friends just took three trips and 100k. Cash to Moscow. Where did I suggest it was doing favors?
Google foster care in Auburn.
I am pro abortion, you are not.i wont try to convert you and if you were smart you would do the same. I am predicting you wont though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Where did I suggest it was doing favors?"

Come now. You suggested that, when you said you woul drather be killed than go to foster care.

"I am well aware of the adoption process"

If you claim that large numbers of surrendered newborns would end up in foster care, then I'd challenge your statement that you know a lot about this.

"Google foster care in Auburn"

you google it. One lousy foster care situation, does not meen that all those kids would be better off having never been born.

I'm not trying to convert you, just trying to correct your false statements.

Fixed.

Without Down's syndrome.


Double fixed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what happens to all the imperfect babies that anti-abortion people give up for adoption? Do they all die in the streets? Are they all tortured to death in foster homes?

More misdirection on your part. A small % of abortions are selected because of medical problems of the baby. The vast majority of abortions are done for sheer convenience, nothing else. You can talk about women's health and babies with medical issues, but thats not the heart of the issue. Most abortions are performed on moms who simply don't want to go through pregnancy.

Sorry, jut saw that you also brought race into it.

What evidence do you have, that black babies that get put up for adoption, have miserable lives? Are there huge, institutional orphanages for these kids, that no one ever told me about>

If we need to take better care of these kids, I will happily pay my share of that. To say that they'd be better off to never exist, is quite a leap, and I can't fathom how you feel qualified to make that call.

In the latest PP video released, a former technician at a place that procures fetal tisue, on her experiences dealing with aborted babies at Planned Parenthood.

I ahve no idea if she's telling the truth. But what she says, is she witnessed an aborted baby outside the womb, whose heart was possibly still beating, and they cut through th eface o fthe baby to get the brain tissue. This happened, I guess, at Planned Parenthood.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christi...ased-n2040909#!

Maybe I'm a radical, but I don't want my tax dollars going to that place.

Jim, do you know how many of your tax dollars have gone to killing people? I'd wager a guess that your tax dollars go to killing people in foreign wars to the tune of 99.98% vs 0.02% that might end up at PP
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no doubt that more of my $$ goes to help our military kill people than goes to PP.

Here's the difference. Our military kills really bad people. PP kills unborn babies.

Apples and oranges, dont you think?

Here's the rub. Look up how many innocent Iraqi civilians were killed by errant air strikes, misguided small arms fire, etc... We're those people "bad"?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, they are not all bad, but that's an unavoidable reality of war. It's tragic.

Slaughtering our own unborn, simply because it's easier than accepting the responsibilities of our actions, is not inevitable.

In any event, I shouldn't have to pay for it.

I'm about to be totally tasteless but if a single mom chooses not to have an abortion and then goes off of welfare to the tune of $30 grand a year or what ever it pays out... You will end up paying a hell of a lot more then. There's that tasteless saying that the GOP stops caring for you the moment you are born.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think that's tasteless, I think it's a fair point. My response would be, I would love to pay more taxes to take care of babies saved by outlawing abortion, and I am certain that a huge % of anti-abortion folks would feel the same way. Conservatives don't claim that we shouldn't pay taxes, we just don't want to pay for useless, wasteful things. I'm happy to pay to take care of people in need.

That tasteless saying about the GOP not caring after you are born is a great bumper sticker, but it's demonstrably false. A study called "Who Really Cares" showed conculsively that conservatives are actually more charitable than liberals. Not that liberals are stingy, because they aren't. But to suggest that Republicans don't care? That's nonsense. That sayong isn't tasteless, but it sure is thoughtless. Again, deigned to demonize the opposition, instead of responsing to what we are actually saying.