Planned Parenthood Director Resigns After Watching Abortion Ultrasound

[Adam-12]

I love abortion debates. The answer is so simple you will slap your mama.

If you think abortion is wrong, don't get one!
Just give everyone else the right to chose for themselves.

That's unsound reasoning: I can use the same reasoning for pretty much anything:

If you think killing black people is wrong, don't kill one!
Just give everyone else the right to choose for themselves.

If you think raping your wife is wrong, don't raper her!
Just give everyone else the right to choose for themselves.

If you think sodomizing coma patients is wrong, don't sodomize one!
Just give everyone else the right to choose for themselves.

If you think slavery is wrong, don't buy one!
Just give everyone else the right to choose for themselves.

And so on, and so on...

[theo]

I love abortion debates. The answer is so simple you will slap your mama.







If you think abortion is wrong, don't get one!
Just give everyone else the right to chose for themselves.

It is very simple. If the baby had a choice, it would chose Life.

Now go slap your mama cause she gave you life.

[ScaredOnce]

To quote one of the most astute, logical and best looking guys here...

So, before we jump too far into the same old grooves... There's an on-topic facet to this that jumps out at me. I find that the fact the the Planned Parenthood director just one day figured out her objection to the company's commodity and jumped ship whimsically suspect. I mean, did she not know what she was getting into? I doubt that. It's liek the McDonald's execs who are amazed that their food is killing people... "What!? We sell hamburgers?? I quit."

Maybe there's other motivation here ($$) or some underlying disagreement that isn't as interesting of a headline. Or, it could speak volumes to the mismanagement of Planned Parenthood because they're hiring flakes into directorship positions...

They have been in the news in the past for other Busch moves like employees taped telling a 15yr old to lie about her boyfriend's age or something I recall.

Does this not trip anyone others' "fishy alarms"? I mean, why/how was she there and just one day realized, "I can't morally perform my duties." Okay, so the sight of the ultrasound could've put her over the edge. But, how does that speak to the hiring/management practices of Planned Parenthood?

I used to feel 'strange' about the end use of some of the products my company is contracted to help build. But, the outcomes of their use are on the news everyday and I haven't seen anyone flake out when they realized they're not helping to build a BGM-109 because they make good fireworks.

Just how/why could a person in directorship at a controversial organization who is always being watched end up being a flake? Even though the "flakiness" could seem positive to a pro-lifer, I'd assume that the fact that such a flake was in that position would raise alarm...

[theo]

Just how/why could a person in directorship at a controversial organization who is always being watched end up being a flake?

Cause she doesn't agree with you she is a flake?

Maybe she took a look at her life and realized what she and PP were doing is disgusting. She realized at the end of the day she had to live with the consequences.

[ScaredOnce]

Cause she doesn't agree with you she is a flake?

Maybe she took a look at her life and realized what she and PP were doing is disgusting. She realized at the end of the day she had to live with the consequences.

Easy killer... No. She is not a flake because she doesn't agree. Just as she is not a substantial pro-lifer just because she changed her mind at some point.

My question is more to how/why is a person who's been selected for such a position not able to fulfill their duties after just watching one ultrasound of a procedure... It is concerning for me, as a supporter of abortion. Likely, it should be concerning for the other side too, as they'd likely want to have competent persons in the function, even if they're "the enemy".

Maybe it's less of a thought-provoking turncoat incident than my first impressions relayed. But, I do find interest in the topic, which you strayed therefrom.

I suppose we'll just return to the head-nodding.... nom nom nom nom

[theo]

Easy killer... No. She is not a flake because she doesn't agree. Just as she is not a substantial pro-lifer just because she changed her mind at some point.

If you read my posts, I am not a killer and thankfully now either is she. I think she is a very substantial pro-lifer as she is no longer promoting the killing of babies.

[ScaredOnce]

If you read my posts, I am not a killer and thankfully now either is she. I think she is a very substantial pro-lifer as she is no longer promoting the killing of babies.

I stand correct, non-killer. And yes, I concede that her activity has value for the other side. Though, my consternation still resides in the turncoat issue. It's good for neither (not either )of our positions. "Know thine enemy." It's just as strangely curious as if the most rabid pro-lifer were to turn pro-abortion after reviewing one pro-abortion success case. I'd question the whys there too...


(that's where I was going with this deep-dive. i'm just not buying her conviction - however it is allied at the moment.)

[Tootie]

Just to reiterate -

The key word there was "any". Note that the word in question was not "those". What that means is that even non-citizens are protected by the liberty clause.

Even were that not the case - Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was written for the express purpose of upholding the citizenship of African Americans who had at one point been considered property.

What do you suppose the framers of that amendment (having just fought a war to end slavery) would have thought about modern-day activist judges using it to uphold a practice that denies the inalienable right to life?

Keep in mind that back in those days conception was the legal standard for where human life began.



Really? When did become okay for us to violate non-citizens' due process rights, outside of warfare?



With Roe v. Wade we got lines of demarcation - and those lines weren't established at birth. The current ban on partial birth abortion was also upheld. So apparently birth is not the only thing that matters - at least not to the law.

So we return, like the swallows to Capistrano, to the essential questions.

Where does life begin?

And what in the US Constitution specifically guarantees a right to abortion?

No the key word is not "any",. What you are trying to argue is only one aspect of the clause, it's like me saying I can carry on school property because I don't like that part of the clause.

No I can't and no it doesn't apply to "any" without first looking at whom it is directed at

to quote Phil "All persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US"

All persons born, see born, it doesn't say conceived. You have to be born to be a citizen, period. One cannot be a citizen if they are not born first.

As to where life begins, who knows. In your eyes I'm sure it's when conception takes place, but in my eyes it doesn't. So who's view shall be taken? Just to elaborate, my view is that life begins when the fetus is able to survive on it's own. Before that it is a parasite (only word I could think of this early in the morning) living off it's host. It is not an individual, it is part of someone else, feeding off them to grow and then eventually become one in of itself.

Is my view wrong? Is your view wrong? It's a personal viewpoint that cannot be forced upon another. Personal is just that, just because you believe something does not mean that you can force your beliefs on me.

That makes no sense.



All persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US. The text defines who are US citizens. The unborn are therefore not US citizens because they have not been born or naturalized in the US. It does not mean that non-US citizens (including but not limited to the unborn) are not persons.

The amendment uses "citizen" and "person" deliberately. It says no state shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens. It further enumerates certain rights that cannot be taken away from any person without due process.

Whats makes no sense. That I am not willing to take out the most important part of the clause, All persons born or naturalized? Do you understand that you cannot take one part of a clause and not first read whom it is directed at. I don't care what it says in the middle of a sentence, it does not equate to all people. You first have to qualify by being one of the excepted to be included. "Any" is not included without first being born or naturalized.

I love abortion debates. The answer is so simple you will slap your mama.







If you think abortion is wrong, don't get one!
Just give everyone else the right to chose for themselves.



As for the topic of the video, medical procedures are not always cute. I have seen the insides of people, sometimes it's gross. Some people can't look at blood, others could watch an autopsy while eating a snickers. everyone is different. If this person does not like looking at the procedure, don't watch it.

BINGO

Don't force your views on others. Sure we might not agree on many things, but I am not here to force my views on you, and, you should not be here to force your views on me. Forcing people to believe one ideology is going down a slippery slope and will backfire on you in the end. It's one of the main reasons this country exists.

[Adam-12]

BINGO

Don't force your views on others...

The question is what you do when "your view" is that it's murder. For some strange reason I can't say "Don't force your view on others" if I kill my six-month-old baby, or my teenager, or my wife. Those meddling strangers insist on locking me up and just generally forcing their views on me. So how would you advise people who think it's murder to know the difference between the kind of murder you do something about, and the kind of murder you "don't force your views on others"?

[Tootie]

The question is what you do when "your view" is that it's murder. For some strange reason I can't say "Don't force your view on others" if I kill my six-month-old baby, or my teenager, or my wife. Those meddling strangers insist on locking me up and just generally forcing their views on me. So how would you advise people who think it's murder to know the difference between the kind of murder you do something about, and the kind of murder you "don't force your views on others"?

That doesn't enter into this topic. We are not debating the murder of a "person". What we are debating is when does something becomes a person.

As to your point once a person exists you cannot murder them without ramifications.

Case in point. A father ran over his daughter because he didn't like how she became "westernized". She just died. He is now charged with murder. She was a living being, breathing on her own. Existing without the aid of someone else. That's murder.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Which goes back to when does something become a person (human), conception or birth. It's an individual view point, some think at this point, others think at that point. But, is it our right to force what we believe on others? Is it my right to tell everyone that they are wrong and I am right?