Live Action undercover videos show Kentucky abortion clinic covering up statutory rape
posted at 8:48 am on April 22, 2010 by Cassy Fiano
Live Action has released two new undercover videos showing a Kentucky abortion clinic covering up statutory rape and giving medically misleading information. These videos show that, while Planned Parenthood might be the abortion giant in the United States, their clinics are not alone in their willingness to break the law.
The clinic Rose went undercover in is the EMW Women’s Surgical Center, a National Abortion Federation (NAF) center. The National Abortion Federation lobbies in Washington for abortion “rights”, and has branched out into Canada, Europe, and Australia.
In the first video, Rose gives her name as “Brianna”, her age as 14, and tells the counselor that her boyfriend is 31. The counselor assures Rose that she will not report the boyfriend, that she can keep it a secret, and advises her on how to get around parental notification via a judicial bypass.
Here, we see the counselor giving extremely false and misleading medical information. She determines that Rose is 14-15 weeks pregnant, and tells Rose that there is no brain activity, and that it doesn’t even occur until 18-19 weeks into the pregnancy.
As the video shows, the reality is somewhat different.
As per usual, this is breaking the law.
In the video, the EMW counselor named “Wendy” determines that Rose is “14 to 15-weeks pregnant” and Rose expresses that she wants to keep the situation secret from her parents. Though Rose gave no indication that she would face abusive parents, the clinic directs Rose to call Louisville attorney Mickey Adams so that she can obtain a judicial bypass around Kentucky’s parental consent law and avoid parental knowledge of the abortion or sexually abusive relationship.
In the state of Kentucky, sex between a 14-year-old and a 31-year-old is rape in the third degree and would reasonably be considered sexual abuse of a child which must be reported to law enforcement immediately. The clinic failed to ask the questions necessary to file a child sexual abuse report and did not communicate to Rose about the illegal or dangerous nature of her sexual relationship.
Rose, a UCLA student, says this sort of disregard for the law is typical at abortion centers. “In abortion clinics across the country, our undercover videos document the widespread cover up of sexual abuse. Abortion clinics like EMW in Louisville center attempt to fast track underage abortions on vulnerable girls, shut out parents, and blatantly ignore their legal obligation to report the sex predator to police.” says Rose.
Live Action has previously released videos of statutory rape cover-up at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in Bloomington, IN, Indianapolis, IN, Memphis, TN, Birmingham, AL, Los Angeles, CA, Tucson, AZ, Phoenix, AZ, and Milwaukee, WI. Prompted by a Live Action video, the Alabama Health Department placed the Birmingham clinic on probation after conducting its own investigation which found 9 legal violations. Rose urges officials in Kentucky to follow suit: “State authorities need to investigate this Louisville abortion clinic and hold them accountable to the law,” Rose insists. “Until they do, young girls will be put at risk of continued sexual abuse.”
This clinic is the only abortion clinic in the state of Kentucky. NARAL bemoans the strict oversight of abortions in Kentucky.
- Abortion Ban
Kentucky has an unconstitutional and unenforceable criminal ban on abortion.- Biased Counseling & Mandatory Delay
Kentucky has a partially unenforceable law that subjects women seeking abortion services to biased-counseling requirements and mandatory delays.- Counseling Ban/Gag Rule
Kentucky prohibits certain state employees and organizations receiving state funds from counseling or referring women for abortion services.- Insurance Prohibition for Abortion
Kentucky restricts insurance coverage of abortion.- Other Anti-Choice Law
Kentucky law includes a strongly anti-choice policy statement.- Public Facilities Restriction
Kentucky prohibits the use of all public facilities for abortion services.- Refusal to Provide Medical Services
Kentucky allows certain individuals or entities to refuse to provide women specific reproductive-health services, information, or referrals.- Restrictions on Low-Income Women’s Access to Abortion
Kentucky restricts low-income women’s access to abortion.- Restrictions on Young Women’s Access to Abortion
Kentucky law restricts young women’s access to abortion services by mandating parental consent.- Spousal Notice
Kentucky has an unconstitutional and unenforceable law mandating spousal notice before a married woman may obtain abortion care.- Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP)
Kentucky subjects abortion providers to burdensome restrictions not applied to other medical professionals.
The NARAL caterwauling just goes to show that feminists and abortion lobbyists do not want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. They want women to have abortions. Any kind of restrictions on abortion, even something as harmless as medical counseling prior to the abortion, sends them into a frenzy. They know that if a woman gets medically accurate information about her unborn child, she will be much less likely to go through with the abortion. They don’t want spouses to be involved — even if the child is half the father’s, they don’t want him to be able to have a say in whether or not his child lives or dies. They don’t want any kind of restrictions whatsoever — no medical counseling, no parental or spousal notification, nothing. Abortions should not only be legal, but they should be commonplace and taxpayer subsidized. It’s sick. It’s as if these feminists and lobbyists want there to be little abortion mills, with women just coming in and getting abortions over and over again.
And so we see that it is not just Planned Parenthood that is the problem, but the massively powerful abortion lobby as a whole. Abortionists are willing to break the law and manipulate and lie to young girls time and time again. These two videos in particular show why they’re willing to do so: money. Had Rose not been pretending, had this been a real girl and they were successful in selling an abortion to her, then they would have collected a cool $1,075. After all, there’s a lot of money to be made performing abortions — not so much encouraging the girls to keep their babies or put them up for adoption.
To all of you pro-choicers reading this: are you OK with this? Is this the kind of pro-choice America you celebrate, one where abortion clinics prey on confused, scared young girls and manipulate them into getting abortions? Where clinics routinely break the law and offer medically inaccurate information? Where the truth about the unborn is kept secret?
I would think that anyone who had any kind of morals would be outraged at what is happening in abortion clinics across the country — whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice. This is something we should all be able to agree on.
The lies, the abuse, the manipulation… it all has to stop.
Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
*blink*
Fathers will be surprised to learn this one.
AnninCA on April 22, 2010 at 3:38 PM
Fathers should not be financially responsible for their children. If a woman can make the choice to murder her own unborn baby, then the father should not be financially culpable for anything.
No more ‘child support’ payments.
Inanemergencydial on April 22, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Funny how you drone about Americans, when you’re not one. Never realized it before, but you’re a Brit.
Sorry England, but you can keep him/her/it. We’ve got enough idiots already.
Squiggy on April 22, 2010 at 4:14 PM
–So there’s no moral difference between something that can’t breath air, can’t eat food, can’t feel pain, isn’t conscious, can’t talk, can’t walk and something that can?
Jimbo3 on April 22, 2010 at 4:19 PM
WTF? By definition, a father is responsible financially for a child in cases where the woman chose NOT to abort. Your twisted logic to excuse deadbeat dads is morally bankrupt.
Firefly_76 on April 22, 2010 at 4:44 PM
Hardly. Sadly, a great many children are born and raised without the father being anywhere in the picture. I don’t claim that it’s a good thing, but it’s a fact.
The difference between a fetus and a toddler – or an aged senior – is purely developmental. Humans develop as they age, from conception to death.
It seems that you’re trying to argue that a 26-week premature baby is “human” while a child of the same gestational age but still inside the womb is somehow “less than human.” the only difference between them is that one has taken a trip down the birth canal.
It also seems that you’re arguing that a person who is anesthetized (can’t feel pain, is not concious) or who requires the support of a mechanical ventilator (can’t breathe) or whose jaw is wired shut (can’t eat food) or who suffers aphasia (can’t talk) is not morally a human. Nice.
BTW, a fetus can breathe air if it’s outside the womb. Preemies do it all the time. Sometimes they need to be on ventilators. While the lungs are immature, they do work. And fetuses do feel pain; the nervous system is well-developed. They respond to light and sound. Newborns (who were fetuses moments before) certainly respond to pain.
skydaddy on April 22, 2010 at 4:44 PM
Whaa? I am an American, and a staunch conservative. I just think the lesson of our times is that if people don’t speak up about their freedoms they will lose them, and that includes abortions and health cares and salty food and oil drillings.
happyfeet on April 22, 2010 at 4:44 PM
And who speaks for the unborn, cr@ppyfeet? Certainly not you, with your lovely, infectiously “happy” attitude of “I don’t give a toss when life begins”.
Your terminal immaturity rears its ugly head with every post.
Grace_is_sufficient on April 22, 2010 at 4:49 PM
–All depends on the age of the fetus. Do you think a ten week old fetus feels pain and can breathe on its own? You have to have very close to fully developed lungs to successfully breathe.
–You did twist my words a bit. I said something that could do none of them, not only one of them. And I’d argue that someone on a vent can breathe (because s/he is breathing through their lungs) and I’d argue someone that is drinking a liquid diet can still eat. If you want to change “talk” to communicate by writing or speaking or hand signals, I’d go along with that.
Jimbo3 on April 22, 2010 at 4:49 PM
It’s called consistency. Apparently you missed out on the reproductive rights and the right to choose part of the feminist agenda. If a man has no say in the abortion decision process, why should he have to pay for a child brought to term?
Inanemergencydial on April 22, 2010 at 4:52 PM
And who speaks for the unborn, cr@ppyfeet?
various wingnuts, mostly…
it’s kind of annoying to tell the truth, but some of them are wonderful people.
happyfeet on April 22, 2010 at 4:52 PM
And, apparently you missed the basic point that two wrongs don’t make a right. No one’s arguing for the abortion agenda here. Your view does nothing but harm the child who is innocent of any ‘feminist agenda’ and a mother who may be pro-life. sheesh
Firefly_76 on April 22, 2010 at 4:57 PM
Jimbo, the difference is one of gradual development. There is no clear bright line. My son was born full-term, but had immature lungs. He spent three days on a vent. It was completely unexpected. How many grains of sand does it take to make a beach? If I remove one grain, is it no longer a beach?
The “viability” argument fails because A. it is a moving target as technology advances (100 years ago almost all preemies died, now a great many survive IF their mothers have access to care) B. it is dependent on access to technology (a preemie in Haiti is SOL whereas the same child born in the US could well survive). But the biggest reason is that viability is a test that can only be applied after the fact. If the preemie dies, he or she wasn’t viable.
In contrast, the moment of conception IS a clear moment. It’s nearly instantaneous. There is no mystical or supernatural aspect; it’s scientifically measurable. Before fertilization occurs, the woman is not pregnant. Afterward, she is (and I’ve met women who swear they could feel the moment of fertilization.) That fertilized egg is a human being – it can be nothing else.
skydaddy on April 22, 2010 at 5:01 PM
At $1075 a pop, you can be assured they are making a healthy margin.
One can find clinics significantly cheaper in other areas, but remember, they’re making a healthy margin too; courtesy of the American taxpayer.
In both, the abortionists and nurses get paid fairly well when compared.
This is one of the few industries that I wish wasn’t such a successful business model.
Jason Coleman on April 22, 2010 at 5:07 PM
–You and I will have to disagree on this. Viability at any particular age or any particular point in time is a moving target, but it’s pretty clear in practice whether or not something can survive outside the womb. My understanding is that no fetus of less than roughly 21 weeks has ever survived. I also think that lung development doesn’t fully occur after a fetus is delivered. If I’m right, what that means is that fetuses below a certain age will never develop the full capabilities to breathe (I need to check this out–I may be wrong on this).
Jimbo3 on April 22, 2010 at 5:16 PM
We have moving targets in other areas–speed limits, blood-alcohol, age of sexual consent, draft age, tax burden.
While conception is an event, it isn’t practically measurable. Otherwise, those women you mention could immediately take a pregnancy test. They can’t and they may lose the fertilized egg before it implants without knowing. Neither science nor governments can do anything to protect life at this stage, even if there was a decision to grant Constitutional rights at the moment of conception.
dedalus on April 22, 2010 at 5:42 PM
?!?!?!?!?!?!
So, how does a doctor know how to proceed with in vitro fertilization, does he flip a coin!?!
Akzed on April 22, 2010 at 6:47 PM
Ok so what have we learned today? We learned that even if the fetus baby thingy is considered life at conception, sometimes people don’t want to have life in their uterus. So they go get an abortion. If they do this in the first 3 months it’s not very expensive really. If they wait til the second trimester it’s gonna be significantly more expensive.
Significantly.
Also we learned that Lila Rose is very dishonest, how she represented that nice clinic lady as being all crimey.
That is many learnings for one day and we haven’t even turned on the Beeb yet.
happyfeet on April 22, 2010 at 7:09 PM
Sometimes people don’t want to have life in their home. Should they be allowed to kill the life living inside their home?
blink on April 22, 2010 at 8:02 PM
He’s in a lab. It’s tougher to monitor when the fertilization happens inside the woman’s body. It’s likely technically, but not practically, measurable.
dedalus on April 22, 2010 at 8:10 PM
Don’t be absurd. Pregnancy tests are highly correlated to conception within a very reasonable timeframe.
blink on April 22, 2010 at 8:34 PM
The hCG tests are based on implantation not conception. There is almost always more than a week before they begin to show results. At that point in time is still difficult to see how a government can ensure the rights of the unborn.
dedalus on April 22, 2010 at 8:57 PM
So transparent you are, cr@appyfeet, so sadly transparent. You’re not smart enough to cover your buzzwords, and therefore you reveal yourself at every turn.
Really. I just don’t think you’re up for what you’re trying to do. You’re just not.
Grace_is_sufficient on April 22, 2010 at 9:50 PM
Seriously, women- and 14 year old girls- deserve so much better than abortion.
Jewels on April 22, 2010 at 9:58 PM
I just think it’s important to stand up for freedom Grace person. It’s so easy to say ohnoes we can’t murder the baby fetuses it would be wrong. But si se puede. It’s freedom, glorious freedom, that women get to decide what they want to do. Little pink house for you and me, Grace person.
happyfeet on April 22, 2010 at 10:34 PM
Jimbo3 on April 22, 2010 at 5:16 PM
So if it isn’t a human, what is it? I mean, if you’re going to talk viability, tell us what is it? a baby that can’t survive outside the womb or a baby that can? Because if the DNA is something other than human, please, fill us in.
dedalus on April 22, 2010 at 5:42 PM
It may not be now but that doesn’t mean a test won’t be developed. Look at the progress of the tests. We went from none to over the counter. Who knows what will be available in 5, 10 or 15 years.
happyfeet on April 22, 2010 at 7:09 PM
We also learned your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. It would be different if you were smart or funny.
gitarfan on April 22, 2010 at 11:16 PM
No. It wouldn’t be different at all.
I know how y’all are.
happyfeet on April 22, 2010 at 11:35 PM
Par for the course for abortion clinics.
Sad.
Yakko77 on April 23, 2010 at 12:24 AM
I don’t believe that’s what I said, was it? Nice try though.
Cylor on April 23, 2010 at 12:28 AM
blink, gitarfan, thanks for stepping up.
Jimbo, daedelus, the point is that fertilization IS the thin bright line that separates is-a-human-individual from not-a-human-individual. Whether or not that instant is *currently* detectable via a practical home-based test, the change does in fact happen in an instant.
“Viability” offers no such certainty.
Oh, one more thing….
Let me be clear: happyfeet, I am actively ignoring you.
skydaddy on April 23, 2010 at 12:36 AM
Uhh, anybody else notice that this video is 5 years old?I seem to remember an uproar when it was originally released. Not that the age makes it more acceptableBut what is the purpose of releasing this video again 5 years after the incident occurred?
schmuck281 on April 23, 2010 at 1:53 AM
Again, you’re being absurd. So what if it’s takes a week? Nobody knows wether or not conception even occurred prior to a positive test anyway.
First, this issue is a completely separate from the testing issue.
Second, it’s actually not that difficult for the government to ensure the rights of the unborn at all. But even if it was, since when does difficult enforcement of rights mean that no rights can legally exist?
blink on April 23, 2010 at 3:00 AM
Yes. Sick sick sick behavior is a good description of rape. But it is also a good description of a mother killing her baby.
Slowburn on April 23, 2010 at 5:37 AM
You can’t be this blind, so you must be “disguising” who you are. I suspect the latter.
Your “freedom”, cr@appyfeet, results in bread and water for all in equally paltry amounts. But you think you have us gamed. You do not. We know all about your ilk, but you have no idea who we are. Our ideas are too big to appeal to such gross immaturity.
When you figure out that the rainbows and unicorns will never appear…about the same time you figure out Mickey Mouse is just a guy in a suit…come back, okay? Then maybe we can chat.
Until then, you are revealed.
Grace_is_sufficient on April 23, 2010 at 5:46 AM
happyfeet on April 22, 2010 at 11:35 PM
No, really it would be.
gitarfan on April 23, 2010 at 8:09 AM
It’s essential in a debate over when to establish rights for the fetus. Most pro-lifers will assert conception is that point and argue against implantation, brain waves or viability as the criteria.
Whether a mother knows isn’t relevant to the life that’s lost. Probably the majority of unborn deaths happen in the time-frame before a women knows she’s pregnant–either accidentally or induced by a drug.
If conception is the criteria, then death a few days after conception is no less tragic than death a few days after birth.
dedalus on April 23, 2010 at 8:47 AM
probably the majority of unborn deaths are really none of your business I should think.
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 9:03 AM
Might as well say: probably the majority of
unborndeaths are really none of your business I should think.The state, people, do have an interest in death via murder. That’s the way organized society is.
Funny how everyone is so concerned about the “mother” and her rights, but forgets about the baby and their rights.
I still can’t get over the adamant belief that ending a life is a positive thing…and even more strange is the effort to keep women from being counseled. If it is so right for abortion, then why not allow counseling?
I get the argument (I don’t buy into it) of a “women’s body”, then why not let her have counseling so she does make the right choice for a life changing event?
The only conclusion is that they are promoting abortion purely for profit…at any expense.
right2bright on April 23, 2010 at 10:05 AM
-So what did you mean?
Jimbo3 on April 23, 2010 at 10:15 AM
profit is just a reflection of providing a service that’s in demand at a price the market will bear.
If women want abortions they should have them irrespective of what neurotics like Lila Rose think.
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Is it “allow” or is it “require” counseling? Beyond making information easily accessible, is there a role for the government in counseling people? Perhaps ahead of approving marriage or divorce, the government could provide counseling. I’m not sure what level of quality government counselors would provide. Hopefully, they’d be better at their jobs than the SEC employees.
Either way though, there is a point where a human organism attains Constitutional rights–somewhere between fertilization and delivery. No amount of counseling allows one person to kill another.
dedalus on April 23, 2010 at 10:21 AM
OK, meaningless paragraph.
OK, another meaningless paragraph.
OK, death a few days after conception is no less tragic than death a few days after birth.
Do you have any other argument? Because you’ve been reduced to making meaningless statements.
blink on April 23, 2010 at 10:51 AM
I agree with right2bright.
Your argument is quite sophomoric.
You need to establish why the deaths of toddlers are your business while the death of a younger being isn’t.
Such an argument isn’t really difficult to establish. Plenty of material is only a google search away.
blink on April 23, 2010 at 10:58 AM
Profit is just a reflection of providing a service that’s in demand at a price the market will bear.
If pimps want to smuggle underage El Salvadoran girls and use them as sex slaves and get government help buying a house they should do that irrespective of what neurotics like James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles think.
Now do you see the many assumptions you made in your statement, happyfeet?
Also (since I suspect the “it’s legal” “argument” [sic] is coming): I don’t know how old you are, but abortion has been illegal for A LOT longer than it’s been legal. Legal does not = right.
inviolet on April 23, 2010 at 10:58 AM
Much of the pro-life movement is based on the question of when life begins. I don’t consider it meaningless, nor do they.
dedalus on April 23, 2010 at 11:06 AM
freedom means other people sometimes do things you’d rather they not, inviolet… you can get all up in their grills about it if you want – it’s your own personal journey on the big blue marble… I just wish it wasn’t so closely associated with Team R, which is the only Team what can unite the freedom-loving anti-dirty socialist forces of our little country… and so they need very much to walk the walk and not be fetus shrieky.
also I find many lifeydoodles to be incredibly arrogant, to tell you the truth.
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 11:53 AM
What a load of crap. We don’t have the freedom to kill another human being. Unless you want to go out into crazy land and advocate legalizing murder and rape, in which case, no one will take you seriously.
As for all of this talk about not being able to adequately define when life begins. That’s also a load of crap. It begins at amphimixis. Period. End of story. It is completely moot to talk about it in the way that dedalus is because no woman can have an abortion prior to knowing she’s pregnant. I don’t know what sort of convoluted point he’s trying to make, but it has no bearing on the debate.
The bottom line is that we know a new, unique human being is formed at amphimixis. That same human being is killed by abortion. There is no question. There is no debate.
Vera on April 23, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Arrogant? We’re not the ones claiming the “right” to kill other human beings. You are. Tell me, happyfeet, do you support killing post-born humans as well. It’s all freedom, right?
Vera on April 23, 2010 at 12:04 PM
We don’t have the freedom to kill another human being.
Yes we do!! Welcome to America, sweetie. Please leave your ugly ugly arrogant judgeyness at the door. People don’t have to live like you say! In America, we can tell you to sod off!! Yay!
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 12:11 PM
When children with arms and legs and fingers and beating hearts and brain waves are being legally slaughtered, and others are shrugging their shoulders and telling one to get over it, one does tend to feel upset about it. Nature of compassion and all.
I find people who impose their morality – fatally – on millions of helpless unborn children to be the real arrogant ones, to tell you the truth.
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 11:53 AM
inviolet on April 23, 2010 at 12:12 PM
This was, very nearly word for word, what American slaveowners wrote defenses of slavery about in the 1800. Congratulations – you have the morality of a plantation slaveholder. Yay!
inviolet on April 23, 2010 at 12:13 PM
1800 = 1800s
inviolet on April 23, 2010 at 12:14 PM
Answer my question, Happyfeet. Do you believe we should have the freedom to kill post-born humans at will? What about rape?
Hey, it’s all about freedom right. Leave your ugly ugly arrogant judgeyness at the door! I demand the right to kill anyone who gets in my way! If you don’t like it, you can sod off!
Vera on April 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM
I don’t consider the question of when life begins to be meaningless at all.
But your statements were meaningless with respect to that question. You were talking in circles.
blink on April 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM
I think it’s a radical fascist subset of Christians what are that hatey ones inviolet… the ones what would force women to bear children for Jesus are the ones with the morality of a plantation slaveholder, really.
People like Lila Rose.
These ones reflect poorly on Christianity and bring a beautiful religion into scummy disrepute. They should knock it off.
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Sophomoric again.
Are you actually claiming that you would NEVER complain about ANY freedom which could theoretically be granted to Americans? The freedom to harass? The freedom to rape? The freedom to steal property? The freedom to murder?
Are you claiming that you’d simply tell yourself that freedom means other people sometimes do things you’d rather they not????
blink on April 23, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Do you believe we should have the freedom to kill post-born humans at will? What about rape?
Why do you dippy lifeydoodle keep saying killing little fetuses is the same as killing full grown people? It’s obviously different. People what are borned we love them. Fetuses, women can smoosh them like grapes if they want. It’s their choice, not yours. And it’s really none of your business.
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 12:25 PM
Wow, Happyfeet. That is perhaps the biggest, most flaming strawman I’ve ever seen.
Would you like to address the question I’ve posed to you on three separate occasions, or would you like to continue to keep knocking over strawmen?
Vera on April 23, 2010 at 12:26 PM
No amount of pleading or reason will ever penetrate a mind and heart of this nature.
Despite everything I’ve read before, I am simply aghast at this paragraph.
KinleyArdal on April 23, 2010 at 12:27 PM
1.) You assert amphimixis is the point where human life begins.
2.) Would it be fair to say that human life at that point is the equal to those already born?
3.) If so, the value of that new human is independent of the mother’s knowledge of its life. (Unless one holds a radically subjective view of existence.)
Today the practical consequence of the question can be found with “morning after” procedures. They are taken at point when a woman doesn’t know whether she is pregnant, and she ingests something designed to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg if it is there.
dedalus on April 23, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Ok, happyfeet. You’re obviously a troll. You didn’t make an argument, you just stated a bunch of rambling crap that had all the intellectual maturity of my 4 year old.
Please explain why a human fetus should not have the rights and protections of a born human being.
Saying “THEY’RE DIFFFERENT DUH!!!” isn’t an argument.
Vera on April 23, 2010 at 12:28 PM
*lifeydoodles* I mean
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Nobody is saying that it’s the same.
But your argument is NOT differentiating between the two.
blink on April 23, 2010 at 12:28 PM
My dear, dear happyfeet:
One of the reasons Christianity is beautiful is that Jesus said that how we treat “the least of these”, those who are the least regarded in the society in which we live, is how we treat Him. He takes behavior to them as done to Him (Matthew 25) and He also warned (Matthew 25) that we will be judged at the end of our lives based on how we have treated the least of these. God demands elsewhere in the Bible that we speak for those who have no voice to defend themselves, especially children.
If you can name anyone in our society who has fewer rights, fewer possessions, less ability to speak for themselves than the humans God created who are yet unborn, I’d sure like to hear you identify them.
inviolet on April 23, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Did you take stupid pills this week?
The value of human life is independent of a parent’s knowledge of its life.
I’m sure you agree that the value of a baby’s life is independent of the father’s knowledge of its life, right?
blink on April 23, 2010 at 12:31 PM
I AM saying it’s the same. Both are human, both are alive. One is less visible and more dependent than the other.
You might as well say “why do you say killing little one year old infants is the same as killing full grown people?”
The ONLY reason there are differences is that the body is easier to kill, smaller and easier to cover up the murder.
Yes, the morality is the same.
inviolet on April 23, 2010 at 12:32 PM
Vera I don’t have to make an argument for freedom, for the status quo. Especially when there’s no danger of you lifeydoodles ever holding power in our little country. People find radical lifeydoodle nazis like poor demented Lila to be scary and repugnant.
hey.
Did you just hear a smoosh?
I think I just heard a smoosh.
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 12:32 PM
happyfeet, how are you know embarrassed at your debating skills?
Go read some pro-choice debating points and come back. You’re getting your butt kicked on here for no reason.
Stop showing up to this gun fight without a gun.
blink on April 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Dedalus, morning after pills and post-coital IUD’s (as well as standard birth control) are a bit of a gray area only because you can not say with certainty if they actually act to prevent implantation or not. It is theoretical, and I’ve seen arguements that say that they no more inhibit implantation than having sex at infertile times or nursing would.
That said, I would personally not use any sort of hormonal contraception because the risk of post-conception effects is one that I would not feel comfortable taking. I would also tell anyone thinking of using such medicine to carefully consider that it could have post-conception effects.
I’m not sure how we could really conclusively say if such contraception acts mainly in a post-conception manner. Ultimately, I don’t think that one should take actions that have the potential to lead to another’s death. It’s also more difficult to find a post-born analogy for that type of situation. Perhaps acting with disregard for anothers life? I guess the question still remains one of odds of an ill event happening.
It is definitely more complicated than the question of induced abortion, where both intent and outcome are much more easily traced. That said, I do not think that this bit of ambuiguity negates arguments against induced abortion in general.
Vera on April 23, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Yawn.
A month old baby can be smooshed, too.
blink on April 23, 2010 at 12:35 PM
“Why do you insane abolitiionists keep saying that owning Africans is the same as restraining the rights of full blown Americans? It’s obviously different. White skinned people, we love them. Darkies, slaveholders can smoosh them like grapes if they want. It’s their choice, not yours. And it’s really none of your business.”
Again, I’m not making this up. This REALLY WAS the argument for slavery , in the 1800s.
Pro-Choice. “If you don’t want a slave, don’t buy one.” People actually said that.
inviolet on April 23, 2010 at 12:35 PM
The ONLY reason there are differences is that the body is easier to kill, smaller and easier to cover up the murder.
That is definitely a big part of the reason, but also there’s the idea that a woman shouldn’t have to carry a kid to term if she doesn’t want to. She gets to make the choice, not Lila, not you, not me, and to disallow that choice would be a violation of her humanity I think.
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 12:35 PM
You’re right. Everyday laws deal with much more ambiguity, and he knows that.
I’m not sure why he’s taking such a weak position about this.
blink on April 23, 2010 at 12:37 PM
It’s fairly linear–conception, implantation, brainwaves, viability, birth. Pick a point and decide whether the organism has rights.
dedalus on April 23, 2010 at 12:38 PM
inviolet, slavery is wrong, whether it’s forcing Africans to work in the fields or forcing a 13 year old child to give screaming in pain and terror birth to a rape baby Lila Rose style.
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 12:39 PM
So the ease of the kill and ease of the cover-up should factor into a determination regarding whether or not a murder is ok?
Is this true for very old people, too?
blink on April 23, 2010 at 12:40 PM
And……what’s your point?
blink on April 23, 2010 at 12:40 PM
Are you giving these options so that you can find the flaws in any other point other than birth?
Seriously, I don’t understand what you’re getting at.
blink on April 23, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Definitely! If the woman can have all the choices, and the man none*, then the woman can d*mn well pay her own way. And then there’s the little thing about ‘family court’ being horribly stacked against men, treating them like walking ATM’s…
*Unless I am seriously mistaken, the man can’t even veto an abortion of his child(ren).
Dark-Star on April 23, 2010 at 12:42 PM
old people better be quick on their feet in the dirty socialist America being born Mr. blink
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Forcing a 13 year old child to give birth to a rape baby is slavery?
Are you trying to convince everyone that you’re stupid?
blink on April 23, 2010 at 12:44 PM
13 year old raped children most definitely do need lots of support, compassion and help. Why you think making her complicit in the death of a child will help, I have no idea.
Did you know that when raped women have abortions (several studies have been done on this) almost all of them immediately feel relief. But later, most of them are far more traumatized by being involved in the abortion than being subjected to the rape. Asked why, a typical comment is, “I wasn’t responsible for being raped. But I was partly responsible for the abortion.”
inviolet on April 23, 2010 at 12:44 PM
Dedalus, you can say that a being has rights from conception, but practically, they can only be upheld once the woman knows she’s pregnant. Unless a woman is undergoing infertility treatment and tracking, this probably means implantation.
Vera on April 23, 2010 at 12:45 PM
OK, you’re not even trying to argue. You are just trying to upset people on here in classic troll style.
blink on April 23, 2010 at 12:46 PM
abortion at the end of the day just isn’t that big a deal… you ones just like to get all self-righteous and worked up I think
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 12:55 PM
Surgical abortion is horrible and it will probably go away in the coming decades. Birth control technologies will likely improve creating a smaller window following sex where women will be able to respond.
Assume surgical abortions go away either by government law or medical technology. What government restrictions would you propose on post-conception drugs?
We live in a society where the police write tickets to moms who leave infants unattended in a car. I disagree with that, but the government feels that it can establish a standard for care above and beyond the reasonable judgment of the mother.
dedalus on April 23, 2010 at 12:55 PM
The tape is dated 2005, but according to the PR person, it was actually recorded in June 2008. Why wait almost two years to release it?
keioki on April 23, 2010 at 1:07 PM
This is true it’s unbelievably horrific and people should have been working for more better solutions but even when we have them the debate will be little changed I expect. There will always be demented Lilas.
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 1:14 PM
Dedalus, for obvious abortificients like Methotrexate and RU486, I would say they should be banned in the same way as surgical abortions. That’s pretty obvious.
For hormonal contraceptions, including post-coital contraceptions, I think we would have to establish if they resulted in more implantation failure than nature. Right now, I don’t think we’ve reached that threshold. Sadly, it seems that we’re starting to trend towards pills that act more to inhibit implantation than stop ovulation. I would like to see that trend reversed. Ultimately, I think that the way to ensure contraception without implantation issues would be to put more research on male hormonal contraception.
The same issues surround permanant birth control measures as well. Female sterilziation, while very effective, results in ectopic pregnancies 50% of the time if conception does occur. To me this is an unacceptable risk. For that reason, my husband and I decided that male sterilization is the better option. I think that a lot of the issues related to early conception loss could be addressed if medical research all focused more in this area.
Of course, there are social implications of that as well. Many women like feeling in control of birth control, and wounldn’t necessarally like for it to be in the hands of the men. One thing that is for sure is that the medical landscape is always changing. My hope is that we will find effective birth control that does not act as a potential abortificient.
Vera on April 23, 2010 at 1:17 PM
I’m sure you’re ok with my fix.
blink on April 23, 2010 at 1:35 PM
do you know what genocide means?
It has an actual meaning.
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 1:40 PM
I was gonna go with cold blooded killing of children, but yours works too.
inviolet on April 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM
Blink I believe might have been making an oblique reference to the origins of Planned Parenthood, whose founder, Margaret Sanger, openly advocated abortion as one of the several means of what she wanted: the genocide of African Americans (only she didn’t call them such).
inviolet on April 23, 2010 at 1:43 PM
I think you ones really don’t give enough weight to the enormous blow you deal to the abortion industry when you simply don’t have any. That’s probably the best and most powerful way to assert your values I think.
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Of course it has meaning, you twit!
Do you have a problem with genocide, or do you think it’s really not a big deal at the end of the day?
blink on April 23, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Actually, my point is that happyfeet was making a baseless claim that something wasn’t a big deal.
If he had answered that genocide was a big deal, then I would have asked him to clarify the standard he uses for determining whether or not something is a big deal.
I know it’s a waste of time, because happyfeet’s IQ is obviously well below average and doesn’t understand the gapping holes in his logic.
On the other hand, it’s possible happyfeet knows he’s been made a fool already so he’s now content to simply make trouble.
The irony is that I actually don’t really care about the abortion issue either way. I just couldn’t allow happyfeet and dedalus to be spewing baseless arguments.
blink on April 23, 2010 at 2:00 PM
I beg your pardon I am not a twit.
I don’t think abortion is same as genocide. It’s different in several ways, actually.
happyfeet on April 23, 2010 at 2:02 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »